-----Original Message-----
From: John R. Levine [mailto:johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com]
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 10:07 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: DKIM List
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] layer violations, was detecting header mutations
after signing
Adding a second From: makes the message format illegal. The other
ones don't.
We're still talking past each other. You're right, it makes the
message format illegal, but so what?
That makes it invalid input to any module that requires input to comply with
RFC5322, pure and simple.
Historically, there has been no reason for MUAs to enforce format
compliance on incoming messages. I get the impression that people expect
that to change. But why would it? "To catch stuff that DKIM chose not
to" isn't very compelling.
I think if it becomes well-known that users of MUA 1 are easier to phish than
users of MUA 2, a lot of people will gravitate to the safer implementation,
don't you? I sure would.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html