ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Fwd: Re: [ietf-dkim] canonicalized null body and dkim]

2006-12-20 08:39:03


Michael Thomas wrote:
Mark Delany wrote:
Michael Thomas wrote:
Yes. In my mind there's a substantial difference in clarifying an edge condition

Last call is intended to find bugs. We found a bug, let's fix it.

Last call ended 4 months ago.

Doesn't matter. He's right that we found a bug and we should fix
it.

I don't think the "lateness" has anything to do with it since there are bugs in either direction and no one even noticed until recently. It can hardly be the case that it is breaking much to apply the fix.

Well, we have a deployment and changing this from the current sense would be breaking messages that would have otherwise survived. That is what I recently
discovered. Do you have evidence to the contrary with your DKIM deployment?

If the two fixes differ in how they affect signature robustness then
that is a significant difference. Can you elaborate? (Sorry, I'm not
a mail person so I don't get all the nuances of what can happen to
the last few bytes of a message.)

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

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