ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2006-03-31 13:12:29

On Mar 31, 2006, at 11:15 AM, Douglas Otis wrote:

This approach would be far simpler, as in most cases it would be a static bit of information, such as "w=S" (primary) or "w=s" (secondary) or "w=d" (mda).

Small mistake. If Upper case is used to denote primary, then for consistency, the example should have been:

"w=S" (primary) or "w=s" (secondary) or "w=D" (mda)

The need for noting a signature added by the MDA is not the same as that of sender would be important when the sender and the MDA share the same domain. Perhaps the MDA signature encompasses a results header added by the MDA at the edge of the recipient AdmD or AU. This different role is needed to prevent an added signature from allowing an exploit.

-Doug

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

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