----- Original Message -----
From: "Frank Ellermann" <nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de>
To: <ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org>
Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 5:27 AM
Subject: [ietf-dkim] Re: ISSUE: Better definition of"DKIM signing complete"
required
Eliot Lear wrote:
If you want issues opened, please include "new issue" in the subject,
I used "ISSUE:" as subject tag triggering #1398, therefore I sticked
to what worked in <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.dkim/6566>.
Please include at least something more descriptive than the above so
people understand what precisely the issue is.
The issue is Alice with an "I sign everything" SSP. Bob resends her
mail, he has no clue what SSP and DKIM are, his MUA also doesn't know
it, and maybe his ISP removed Alice's signature at the MDA (proposed
by Doug as naive anti-replay strategy some months ago).
Would the next hop check Alice's SSP (ignoring Bob's Resend-* header
fields) and reject Bob's mail, if Alice's signature didn't survive
the resending ? Or if her signature is too old.
Frank,
Do MUAa resend, forward messages with original headers included? Are we
talking about an MUA or a MTA (router)?
In principle, MUAs do not route, they create new messages.
Am I missing something here?
---
HLS
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html