On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 16:23:31 +0100, Barry Leiba
<barryleiba(_at_)computer(_dot_)org>
wrote:
additional discussion and references. In addition, verifiers MUST
ensure the presence of multiple singleton originating header fields
do not provide a valid signature result.
---
Not including this additional requirement removes recipient assurances a
sender may have expected to be offered by DKIM.
Yes; we discussed this to death and consensus was against saying that.
Your objection to the consensus is noted; nevertheless, we do have
rough consensus.
Not really. There was so much misunderstanding of the problem, and so many
texts proposed, that it is entirely unclear as to exactly what the final
consensus was. For sure, the wording that finally arrived is about as
unhelpful to the implementor as it could be.
--
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