-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Wietse Venema
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 1:26 PM
To: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] detecting header mutations after signing
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
Whether this is the correct solution or not, I want to thank everyone
from moving away from "kick the can" somewhere else to discussing the
issue with a view to resolving the problem.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html