ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] chained signatures, was l= summary

2009-06-01 09:39:50


-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of John R. Levine
Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 5:22 PM
To: Barry Leiba
Cc: DKIM List
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] chained signatures, was l= summary

DKIM is too complicated as it is, and it strikes me as an extremely
poor
idea to add yet more cruft to work around perverse situations that
are
as
yet (and probably always) entirely hypothetical.

I don't understand what "cruft" you think I'm talking about.

Telling people that it is reasonable to add a chain of A-R headers to
messages with broken signatures, and expecting recipients to apply
some
ill defined algorithm to decide how much they believe each level of
alleged signature.

I would really like to remove l= from DKIM to make it clear that it is
not
a good idea to even try to guess the history of a message based on
signatures that don't verify and cover the whole messag.

R's,
John


+1

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