-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Jim Fenton
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 10:42 AM
To: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Collected data
[sticking with Murray's subject line so as not to create two thread
breakages!]
I don't have any data on how many messages had DK signatures as well as
DKIM signatures, but at least some do (I checked some I received). I
don't quite understand your question. The ambiguity that is created
has to do with the DKIM result, not the DK result.
With this change, a DKIM signature referencing a "g=" key might verify if the
verifier elects to enable this backward compatibility feature.
Without this change (i.e. the more strict posture), a DKIM signature
referencing a "g=" key won't verify ever. But that's the same as an unsigned
message.
The harm in the apparent ambiguity seems minimal; it's no worse than if the
signature or key was completely malformed somehow. So is the distinction
important?
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html