On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 4:08 AM, Douglas Otis
<doug(_dot_)mtview(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
In its current form, DKIM simply attaches a domain name in an unseen
message fragment, not a message. The ease in which the only assured
visible fragment of the message signed by the domain being forged makes it
impossible for appropriate handling to be applied or likely harm prevented.
There are existence proofs that contradict this claim. They have been
brought to your attention in the past.
It appears you're continuing to assign semantics to DKIM signatures that
simply aren't there. I don't know what else can be done to clarify this.
Procedurally speaking, what path do you anticipate your draft following?
-MSK