On 22 May 2011, at 15:44, John R. Levine wrote:
Interesting, but not less intricate. The semantics of authenticating
only the armored part of a message is not obvious. Resorting to
base64 encoding is subject to varying interpretations, including
spammers attempts to avoid naive content filtering.
S/MIME and PGP MIME have been doing just that, authenticating just an
armored MIME body, for close to 20 years. Your MUA probably has
support for S/MIME built in.
It does. It tells me that your MIME signature was incorrect.
This is a wheel we do not need to
reinvent.
R's,
John_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
--
Ian Eiloart
Postmaster, University of Sussex
+44 (0) 1273 87-3148
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html