ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] list expanders (was Re: chained signatures, was l= summary)

2009-06-13 12:10:46
J.D. Falk wrote:
Very good point; thanks for discerning the difference.  At its core, I 
think, this is the all-too-common battle between the Platonic Ideal of Email 
and the reality.

In this reality, intermediaries change messages.  Sounds like a few folks on 
this list don't want messages to undergo drastic changes when passing 
through intermediaries, and thus are arguing against any attempt to use DKIM 
to "legitimize" what they view, Quixotically, as illegitimate behavior.  But 
DKIM /will/ be applied in situations where intermediaries change messages, 
because that is a reality of email today.
  

   Asking people to not violate rfc 2822 and 4871 is not asking for 
much. It hurts
   nothing to leave trace headers in the message. Nobody's asking that 
intermediaries
   cease doing what they do today. That's a strawman.

   You still haven't addressed my message citing the relevant rfc's on 
why what you're
   suggesting is wrong after asking me directly.

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