ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] THIS IS A MULTIPLE 5322.FROM MESSAGE

2010-10-06 00:49:59
That this is not in 4871 seems to be mostly a WG assumption that
should be made explicit.

I think several of us thought it was in there, but on review it apparently 
was indeed lost somewhere along the way.  We've certainly, as I understand 
it, been proceeding from that assumption for a very long time.

I like the idea of saying so explicitly in 4871bis, and applying it both to 
signers and to verifiers.

Agreed. Though frankly I couldn't care less about signers. It's always
the verifier that really counts.

I don't like the idea of being any more specific than that.  That
is, I don't want to create specific text for specific cases we know
about because that means anything we don't list could be perceived
as less critical.  A blanket admonishment to implementers is
sufficient and appropriate.

Right. We could attempt to enumerate the 1,000 edge-cases we know
today and then re-bis 4871 for the additional 1,000 edge-cases we
learn tomorrow, or we could simply say that invalid 2822 messages
MUST never verify and call it a day.

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

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