On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 9:15 AM, Dave CROCKER <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
wrote:
On 10/6/2010 8:00 AM, Steve Atkins wrote:
It also changes what DKIM means,
...
Either the message has a valid DKIM signature, or it does not. If the
signature is valid, then the signing domain takes responsibility for the
message, subtly malformed or not. Just because the message lacks a Date:
header or has bare linefeeds doesn't mean that the signing domain isn't
responsible for it.
THis is a particularly clean and precise attention to DKIM's job, nicely
filtering out issues that are not part of DKIM's job.
In particular, it makes the multiple From: issue entirely irrelevant to DKIM.
If you put back this piece of what Steve said:
To comply with that MUST every DKIM verifier would have to
include a full 5322 verifier. That's a fairly high bar.
Do you come to the same conclusion? Steve, do you agree with Dave's conclusion?
--
Jeff Macdonald
Ayer, MA
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html