SM wrote:
Hi Hector,
At 21:40 14-05-2011, Hector Santos wrote:
Can't share the wisdom why?
It's merely an opinion. Please see Murray's comment about a slippery
slope.
I understand the point. But we are doing all this already like section
3.3 Current MLM Effects On Signatures; Minor body changes. It says:
Minor body changes: Some lists prepend or append a few lines to each
message to remind subscribers of an administrative URL for
subscription issues, or of list policy, etc.
The sentence can include or be extended:
In addition, some list changes are not obvious and may be
just an extra line between the header and start of the body.
This a MLM mail integrity deviation just like all the other obscure
MLM mail integrity issues we can have. I personally would like to
extend it to say:
This is an C14N issue that is out of scope but its possible
invalid signatures can be valid when the extra line is removed
from the hashing.
Again, this is a real live MLM stream scenario. Why doesn't anyone
care about addressing these types of MLM streams?
This is suppose to be an informative guide about the issues
retrofitting an MLM with DKIM. Not the other way around.
Why not provide the insights, all the issues and let the verifier
decide? Why not let the MLM developer learn what his software might be
doing so he might fix it?
--
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html