ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2009-06-01 13:10:31
why?



Paul Russell wrote:
On 6/1/2009 10:49, Barry Leiba wrote:
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 5:22 PM, John R. Levine <johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com> 
wrote:
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.
Yes, that seems to be the consensus, and I agree with that.

Barry, as participant

It appears that you either missed or chose to ignore recent messages from
individuals who do not agree that l= should be removed.  I have been reading
the arguments on both sides of this issue and lean towards leaving it in the
spec.


-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html