On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 14:18:45 +0100, Wietse Venema
<wietse(_at_)porcupine(_dot_)org>
wrote:
My preference would be to enforce this within the existing protocol
(that is: send h=from:from:subject:subject...),
But that only copes with some of the scams that are possible; for full
protection you need
... but I could live
with hard-coded checks for unsigned single-instance RFC 5322 and
MIME headers (that is: no DKIM PASS for unsigned "extra" From,
Subject, MIME-Version, Content-type, etc. headers).
--
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