On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 19:38:12 -0000, Scott Kitterman
<ietf-dkim(_at_)kitterman(_dot_)com> wrote:
From my perspective having a message have a valid signature with one
implementation and having a broken signature with another is an
incompatibility. I don't think that's speculation. I think it's the
clear
and obvious result of trying to reconstruct the original content and
seeing
if a valid signature can be extracted based on a process not specified.
No, it merely reflects a difference of opinion by the sites concerned as
to what changes it will tolerate in a message before it recommends to its
clients that the message should be dropped. It is not the job of our
standard to dictate local policy issues at that level of detail.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131
Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html