ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

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

2009-06-02 18:48:09

On Jun 2, 2009, at 2:52 PM, John R. Levine wrote:

Your point about some assessors requring a signed subject is a good  
example. It tells me that 4871 section 5.4 is underspecified, and  
4871bis should strengthen it to say that you MUST sign the headers  
that every message is supposed to have.

DKIM is not limited to just email.   Even ADSP failed to limit its  
assertions to just email.  As such, what should unspecified message  
formats contain?

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

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