ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

New Issue: signed vs. unsigned header fields as input to SSP (was: Re: [ietf-dkim] Seriously.)

2008-01-23 09:21:32


ned+dkim(_at_)mauve(_dot_)mrochek(_dot_)com wrote:
This is an interesting, even novel approach. I'm still trying to
evaluate it. One question I have is how it would interact with what
headers are covered by the author signature. In particular, does the
Sender: field in this case have to be covered by the signature?

Good point. I'd like if we could keep that as a tracked issue, just
so's we remember to think about it.

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