Re: [ietf-dkim] the non-problem of contributor signatures, was DKIM Scou

> I didn't posit this as a problem. Others did. I jumped in at the point that you 
> said s/mime was already a solution, with a message that proved otherwise.
It would be better to say that if there were a problem, and people wanted 
to solve it, the pieces are all there with S/MIME.  MUAs all know how to 
add S/MIME sigs to outgoing mail.  Mailman, which must be the most popular
MLM around, wraps the message body so that it preserves the signature. 
And some MUAs even look inside the wrapper to recognize and verify the 
wrapped signatures.
But a lot of MUAs don't, the ones that do make little effort to separate 
the signed from the unsigned text, and as far as I can tell, until I 
started poking at it last month, nobody knew or cared.
So, again, can someone tell me why this is so urgent a problem that we 
need to add special code to every DKIM signer and verifier in the world to 
solve it?
Regards,
John Levine, johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for 
Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html