John L wrote:
>>> INFORMATIVE NOTE: A message forwarder may remove DKIM-Signature
>>> header fields if it modifies a message in a way that makes it
>>> implausible that a subsequent verifier could verify the
>>> signature, e.g., if it reorders the MIME parts in a message
>>> or flattens an HTML message to plain text.
>>>
>> What does "implausible" mean?
>
>
> It means the same thing it does anywhere else. I realize you think
that verifiers can undo any change a mailing list may do to a message.
You're wrong, but I don't want to get hung up on that again. That's why
I used examples where the message bits are completely mangled.
The problem here is that you suffer from a lack of imagination of what
is "plausible", and I don't want that lack to become enshrined in the
standard.
>> And I disagree about this in general; the forensics of signatures
are as worthwhile as the ultimately unverifyable received headers which
no RFC suggests that you remove.
>
>
> It says "may". Depends on what you expect to be downstream of you.
Having had quite a bit of experience at this at this point, I'd rather you
never decide what's best for me downstream, and most especially in the
case of mailing lists, etc, which you're just an intermediary
and you have no clue as to what my capabilities are.
Stripping means no forensics, period. The current text says that a
DKIM-SIGNATURE is a trace header. Stripping should be as
uncommon as stripping received and other trace headers which
is as far as I ever heard is extremely frowned upon. The current
text in the draft conveys that sense but this does not.
-1
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html