On Friday, October 08, 2010 12:33:38 pm Dave CROCKER wrote:
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?
d/
Detecting modification in transit is outside the scope of what DKIM is trying
to achieve?
Scott K
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html