On 5/5/11 1:36 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 05/04/2011 03:55 PM, Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote:
Well, I think you both are right in reading what my concern/objection
against 4871bis is. And maybe you're also right in that RFC4871
wasn't that much different of RFC4871bis.
I think in the early days of DKIM most people assumed DKIM would
become a protocol where:
* the body hash and header hash, using various header fields,
certifies the DKIM signature and
* the DKIM signature certifies the body and header fields, that
had been used to create the DKIM signature.
Rolf,
By "certify" do you mean "assert that they are true/correct/something
along those lines"?
see the message I just sent to the list.
/rolf
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html