ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal for specifying syntax and semantics for multiple signatures

2006-03-31 12:22:58
Barry Leiba wrote:

Well, the issue is that if, say with the above example, signer #3 signs the other three signature headers, and then the next hop re-orders them, the verifier can still figure out which records signed which others.


So what?


So the signature can survive the reordering; it's essentially a helper for canonicalization.

I'm not suggesting it's critical, only that it was suggested, that we had no further discussion on it, and that it's an alternative to Paul's proposal and should be discussed together with it.

Signatures can already survive reordering right now by not signing
the DKIM-Signature.

My question was much more basic: what useful thing would a receiver do
differently if it knew the order in which signatures were applied? I really
can't think of anything.

      Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>