ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] layer violations, was detecting header mutations after signing

2010-10-18 07:09:52
On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 18:04:22 +0100, Murray S. Kucherawy  
<msk(_at_)cloudmark(_dot_)com> wrote:

This to me says you still believe DKIM's ultimate payload is something  
other than a validated identifier, in this case a domain name.  We're  
thus not on the same page.

If instead we do agree that that's its sole intended purpose (and  
consensus on the errata RFC was achieved, thus confirming this), then  
you also have to agree that DKIM already does that.  The MUAs simply  
fail to make use of it, and that's the real problem.

But we DON'T agree that. It may have been a commonly held opinion at some  
time, but recent contributions to these threads indicate a considerable  
opinion otherwise.

The best opinion seems to be Mark's "What you see is what they sent".

-- 
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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>