ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms

2006-08-02 04:36:58

John Levine wrote:
If you disagree, you really have to provide a concrete scenario where
an added signature turns a valid message into an invalid one, keeping
in mind that the existing message headers and the messge body did not
change at all, since the original signature is still good.

Sorry to keep hammering on about this, but I'd really like to see this
answered. So far it hasn't been and I believe the WG wouldn't be wise
to adopt requirements where we've only got claims of utility but no
demonstrations of utility.

S.

PS: Just wondering. Is this a case where people are thinking that
just because a signature is a positive thing, that there must exist
a meaningful opposite - an anti-signature or something? Well, this
isn't particle physics (luckily!) and afaik there is no such
construct as a negative signature. (Yes a signature can be over a
negative statement, but DKIM-base signatures sign mail, not policy
assertions.) So a policy/practice statement that even implies that
some signatures are anti-signatures makes no sense. (At least in
my Universe:-)


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