Well a broken signature is morally equivalent to unsigned so Im not sure of the
potential harm...
On Oct 15, 2010, at 11:53 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 10/15/2010 11:40 AM, Mark Delany wrote:
Well, if you want to introduce semantic changes why not just change
the meaning of h=from:to: to be semantically identical to
h=from:from:to:to:
This would mean that it is /never/ ok to add a listed header field after
signing. Adding would /always/ break the signature.
That's a very powerful semantic change.
I've no idea that it's completely safe. It seems like it ought to be, but I
worry about corner cases.
d/
ps. I would expect such a semantic change to require re-cycling the spec at
Proposed.
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html