Stephen Farrell wrote:
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.
FWIW, this is sort of the point of rfc5016, 5.3.2, though Ned has
definitely uncovered another aspect of it.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html