Dave CROCKER:
On 10/8/2010 9:28 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
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?
I'm a bit confused.
We want to re-submit DKIM Signing to Proposed Standard, in order to fix an
edge
condition that is only a theoretical issue and only fixes a problem that is
actually outside of the scope of what DKIM is trying to achieve?
If I understand things correctly, the solution is already available
in DKIM today. It involves signer configuration (sign for N+1
instances of each header that is covered by the signature) and
requires no change in protocol or semantics. It merely hardens the
DKIM signature and I see nothing wrong with doing so.
If I am mistaken then please correct me.
Wietse
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html