ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2006-04-04 10:41:54
At 5:27 PM +0100 4/4/06, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Currently "h=foo" is usable to say "I didn't sign foo cause it
wasn't there" (or some better wording), effectively meaning
that if someone adds a foo header field then the sig breaks.

Ought your proposal make reference to this, even if only
to include a reminder that making use of this feature/trick
is liable to be problematic if such a field is likely to be
added by a later MTA/signer?

No, because it doesn't seem related to signing the DKIM-Signature header. There is no sensible way to use DKIM-Signature in h= to indicate "there will be no future DKIM-Signature headers".

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your question.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

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