-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
In message <[email protected]>, Edmund
Lodewijks <[email protected]> writes
>In the latter case, would it be correct to then verify the one-below
>instance's hashes against the message as it stands?
you should be verifying the highest numbered Message-Instance header
field before accepting a message
thereafter you may wish to verify the entire chain -- and you can then
create an asynchronous rejection (ie a DSN) if you now spot an issue
> If there were no
>changes, this should verify; if it doesn't verify, an undocumented
>change occurred?
If you detect a change which is not documented by a recipe then it is
likely you will reject because the previous hop has misled you. If they
refuse to accept your DSN I suggest you cross them off your Christmas
Card list (or otherwise ding their reputation ... you probably do not
want any more email from them).
>Of course, a signature sitting below a recipe-less change becomes
>unverifiable.
that does not seem correct to me
- --
richard @ highwayman . com "Nothing seems the same
Still you never see the change from day to day
And no-one notices the customs slip away"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1
iQA/AwUBakrn32HfC/FfW545EQJjfwCg1aj/BkO61Dm2fXIqxmmgFuVE91MAoNoV
M7KBzcSMIhB38LwgzngZ+Yzp
=JlcB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
