Re: nowsp considered harmful


Douglas Otis wrote:



On Jul 20, 2005, at 11:55 AM, Thomas Roessler wrote:


On 2005-07-20 10:34:24 -0700, Douglas Otis wrote:

While I agree this technique would break the signature,


It wouldn't...



To quote the DKIM draft:



No, Thomas is correct; I read the original as being Content-Type in
the headers, not the mime part.

      Mike

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: nowsp considered harmful, (continued) Re: nowsp considered harmful, Hector Santos RE: nowsp considered harmful, Hallam-Baker, Phillip Re: nowsp considered harmful, Tony Hansen Re: nowsp considered harmful, Michael Thomas Re: nowsp considered harmful, Michael Thomas Re: nowsp considered harmful, Thomas Roessler Re: nowsp considered harmful, Michael Thomas Re: nowsp considered harmful, Douglas Otis Re: nowsp considered harmful, Thomas Roessler Re: nowsp considered harmful, Douglas Otis Re: nowsp considered harmful, Michael Thomas <= Re: nowsp considered harmful, Douglas Otis Re: nowsp considered harmful, Earl Hood Re: nowsp considered harmful, Hector Santos Re: nowsp considered harmful, Dave Crocker Re: nowsp considered harmful, Thomas Roessler RE: nowsp considered harmful, Hallam-Baker, Phillip RE: nowsp considered harmful, Hallam-Baker, Phillip

Previous by Date:	Re: DKIM: Does DKIM provide adequate protection from a malicious domain from spoofing a sender's address?, Michael Thomas
Next by Date:	Re: DKIM - Header Fields, Hector Santos
Previous by Thread:	Re: nowsp considered harmful, Douglas Otis
Next by Thread:	Re: nowsp considered harmful, Douglas Otis
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]