-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Alessandro
Vesely
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 8:34 AM
To: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] detecting header mutations after signing
The whole discussion on multiple "From"s then boils down on whether it
is worth to change the protocol so that, for example,
"h=from:subject:date:message-id:to" MUST be interpreted by the
verifier to mean
"h=from:from:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to", a
handy abbreviation for known fields.
I'm still cringing at the layering violation of "fixing" in DKIM the fact that
many RFC5322 implementations, MTAs, MSAs and MUAs alike, don't bother to
enforce normative portions of that specification.
Is there precedent of this being done elsewhere, i.e. compensating in one
protocol for abundant lousy implementations of a layer below it?
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html