-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Charles
Lindsey
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 4:24 AM
To: DKIM
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] layer violations, was detecting header mutations
after signing
Irrelevant for the current discussion.
On the contrary, that is precisely the attack of interest, so it is
supremely relevant. You claim it can be thwarted by other means, but have
failed to explain exactly how those "other means" would work.
On the contrary, none of this is within the prescribed scope of DKIM. ADSP and
reputation (the latter of which is explicitly out of scope) are predicated on
DKIM's output, not part of its input or its mechanics.
These topics are distractions from the effort of solidifying the DKIM
specification for advancement along the standards track. That's what I believe
he means by "irrelevant for the current discussion".
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html