-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of John R. Levine
Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 10:15 AM
To: DKIM List
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] layer violations, was detecting header mutations
after signing
Am I really the only person who wants to be able to whitelist mail signed
with known good signatures, drop it into user inboxes and expect
reasonable results with existing MUAs?
Not only do I want that, I did that. But the DKIM/ADSP module of that system
is purely DKIM/ADSP. The module that sits between the MTA and the DKIM/ADSP
module does the header count enforcement we're talking about, knowing there's
the potential for invalid mush in there.
You don't have to do it that way in the source code to make it work properly if
some other design makes sense for you, but that is the delineation that should
appear in the normative parts of protocol specifications.
I'm talking purely about specification here. I'm totally fine with one omnibus
implementation that does everything from SMTP server right up to a webmail
rendering if that's what you want to do.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html