ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] RFC4871bis - whether to drop -- l= and x=

2009-06-02 18:43:31
Then we're screwed, since it'll be impossible to do anything at all
that makes it more likely to get your mail delivered.

That's still blurring the line between a verifier and an assessor.  We can only 
make educated guesses about the latter, but we have substantial influence on 
the former.

Subject: isn't a mandatory header per RFC5322, if you're using that as a
specific example.

Remember that a header doesn't have to be present to be signed. It'd be an
egregious spamability hole to let people add signatures and replay without
breaking the signature.

Oh, I haven't forgotten that.  It goes hand-in-hand with the "display header" 
idea.

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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>