On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 19:53:21 -0000, Frank Ellermann
<nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de> wrote:
Steve Atkins wrote:
If it's not verifiable, it's not a signature. (The same applies
to "invalid signature", of course).
Probably Charles means "unverifiable == verifier doesn't know how
to check it (it could be valid or invalid otherwise)", and uses
"invalid" for "it's definitely wrong with the specified algorithm".
Correct.
The folks supporting to list used algorithms in the SSP apparently
think that receivers could care about this nuance. And the folks
opposing that idea note that spammers would try to abuse this info.
Eh? This info is provided to counter a possible exploit. Nobody has yet
suggested that this extra info will open the way to yet further exploits.
--
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