Richard Clayton wrote in
<[email protected]>:
...
|In message <[email protected]
|il.com>, Emanuel Schorsch <[email protected]> writes
|
|>I like this draft and I think it's a great addition. I see this satisfying
|>all the properties that "okaytomodify" did in the discussions on the other
...
|I don't think a single bit can be used in any practical manner.
|
|Also, if people set CanModify: on more than a smattering of mail I doubt
|that many receivers will be prepared to honour it at all. So rather
|than emphasising how useful it would be to a handful of senders I think
|that the hearts-and-minds activity required is to stress how unwise it
|would be to set it unless you really, really need it.
Of the two possibilities
- elder signatures become invalidated by any added header, or
any change of existing headers or the body
- elder signatures never become invalidated unless their
coverage is actually affected
only the first protects sender and recipient user(s) from
malicious intermediates which add headers that mean something to
the visual representation of a message, like "Cc: child-porn,
torture-site", not to talk about other headers.
But then i decided that for DKIM/ACDC aka DKIX the first is too
hard to implement, is it.
What does this DKIM2 nomodify bit do for protecting users.
I bet nothing.
--steffen
|
|Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear,
|der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one
|einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off
|(By Robert Gernhardt)
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
