-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Scott
Kitterman
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 11:46 AM
To: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] detecting header mutations after signing
If we can extract DKIM from the equation entirely and the problem remains,
how is it a DKIM problem?
If the DKIM signature doesn't verify after signed headers have been
altered, then it's not.
I don't understand how that follows. I'm talking about a dual-From: message
that wasn't signed at all. An MUA will still show the "wrong" one. So I fail
to see why a DKIM specification needs to make a normative requirement about a
problem that's been around since years before the acronym "DKIM" ever appeared
anywhere.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html