On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 17:50:33 +0100, Murray S. Kucherawy
<msk(_at_)cloudmark(_dot_)com> wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Charles
Lindsey
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 7:30 AM
To: DKIM
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] detecting header mutations after signing
And if we are not going to fix ADSP (yet), then the only way we can stop
that particular exploit is to fix DKIM.
Arguing that "ADSP is a completely separate discussion" will achieve
nothing.
If that's consensus, then we're on the slippery slope of "fixing" DKIM
to deal with flaws at all layers above it. And we'll never be done.
If you want to fix ADSP first, then let us hear your proposals, and when
we have fixed it we can then go back to finalizing 4871-bis.
But may I ramind you that you alreade said:
On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 17:46:56 +0100, Murray S. Kucherawy
<msk(_at_)cloudmark(_dot_)com> wrote:
The current effort has everything to do with moving DKIM to draft
standard, and nothing at all to do with handling ADSP issues.
In which case we have no option but to fix it in DKIM.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131
Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html