-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Mark Delany
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 1:59 PM
To: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] detecting header mutations after signing
I understand the issues raised by Murray about the slippery
slope. On the other hand, I would rather see an MUA present nothing
about DKIM than give a false impression to endusers.
I can understand the engineering nervousness over crossing layers, but
that seems to me to be conflating the SMTP aspects of an MTA with the
DKIM aspects of an MTA/verifier.
It strikes me that a DKIM verifier is already well into the business
of 2822 semantics as it knows about headers, header labels,
continuation syntax, header/body boundaries and so on.
In that light, taking an additional step wrt duplicate headers (or
malformed 2822 in general) is still in the same layer as the verifier.
My objection isn't so much layering within the software, because I know that
gets mushy real quick, but layering among the protocol specifications. For
example, we wouldn't include in an SMTP specification some text about dealing
with fuzzy TCP implementations, and what people are talking about here makes
just as much sense to me.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html