ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [ietf-dkim] Issue 1287: K... Otis, signature removal

2006-06-05 12:33:24
Well I hate to insist that signers SHOULD do anything but doesn't the
issue of multiple signatures belong in a mail list addendum rather than
base? If I am forwarding should I want to forward an unverifiable
signature over my verifiable one, how would that impact my reputation? 

Bill Oxley 
Messaging Engineer 
Cox Communications, Inc. 
Alpharetta GA 
404-847-6397 
bill(_dot_)oxley(_at_)cox(_dot_)com 


-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 3:18 PM
To: IETF-DKIM
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Issue 1287: K... Otis, signature removal

Wait a minute, hasn't this been discussed ad nauseum with the clear
consensus to leave this text in?

 Signers SHOULD NOT remove any DKIM-Signature header fields from
 messages they are signing, even if they know that the signatures
 cannot be verified.

Well, it's easy to sort out whether we've had sufficient discussion:
Does anyone support Doug's request to remove this text?  If you do, 
please respond here by Thursday's jabber chat.

Barry

--
Barry Leiba, Internet Messaging Technology  
(leiba(_at_)watson(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com)
http://www.research.ibm.com/people/l/leiba
http://www.research.ibm.com/spam
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

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

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