-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Thomas [mailto:mike(_at_)mtcc(_dot_)com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 9:21 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: Rolf E. Sonneveld; ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] MLMs and the use of multipart/alternative to
preserve original DKIM signature and at the same time add a new DKIM
signature
But didn't we also say that such reverified signatures don't get any
additional meaning with 'z=' reprocessing?
Sorry, I don't understand.
I guess I don't either. You're saying use of "l=" and "z=" got your
mail-through-lists signature verification statistics up to 95%. However,
RFC4871 says "Copied header field values are for diagnostic use" which I
interpret to mean (and I think discussion on the list back then also agreed)
that the information in a "z=" tag isn't supposed to contribute to the
canonicalization algorithms, but instead can only be used for diagnostic
purposes (i.e., "This signature failed, and via the 'z=' we know why... but it
still failed.").
-MSK
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html