On Tue, 2004-12-07 at 21:25 +0100, Hannah Schroeter wrote:
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 06:43:25PM +0000, Mark wrote:
As irony would have it, though, the SES added "digest of the message,
which fully prevents an attacker from being able to re-use and existing
reverse-path with a new message," introduces a type of 'redistribution'
issue, not unlike the 'forwarding' problem the SES proponents so vocally
decry.
Right, but only in the digest variant of SES.
No. Common practice is to forward the mail unmodified and in that case
the message-digest still matches. Those who modify the mail are mostly
mailing lists, and in that case the reverse-path is changed anyway.
--
dwmw2