On 05/05/2011 03:35 AM, Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote:
Excuse me for my poor English, I shouldn't have used the word 'certify'
here. I'm not talking about validity of content. Were I used the word
'certify' I mean:
if a DKIM signature verifies successfully, the consumer can be sure that
the body of the message (or the part thereof indicated by l=) and the h=
headers, used to construct this signature, has not been changed between
signer and verifier, and there is a one-to-one relation between the h=
headers and the corresponding headerlines in the header of the message,
that leaves no room for ambiguity. And in my view neither the consumer
nor the assessor should have to re-do the work of the verifier, to get
the assurance, described in the previous line.
Yes, that sounds right. Excuse me because the list volume has
been so high, but what's the problem? Btw, I _think_ the phrase
appropriate here is "data integrity".
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html