On August 17, 2005 at 15:15, Keith Moore wrote: > So for instance a verifying MUA that displays an indication that a > message was signed should display the original message, rather than the > modified message. If it provides an option to display the modified > message, it should make it clear that the message was modified in > transit after being signed. (I can imagine an MUA showing diffs > between versions with strikethroughs, underlines, and change bars, but > I doubt most recipients would bother with such.) > > Seen from that perspective, a filtering verifier might reasonably pass a > signed message if the original content could still be recovered and > verified by the filter, and presumably, by any subsequent verifier and > the recipient's MUA.
Agreed. I was just stating the initial state of the DKIM draft. What you have described has been touched upon before, but it appears to have gotten little traction. To do what you describe will require more involvement by the verifier, with some issues depending on who does the verification. If the MUA does it, showing the original and modified forms is straight-forward (assuming the original is reconstructable). If done at the MTA-level, a decision needs to be made if the MTA will reconstruct the original and "discard" the modified version. This leads into discussions about the value of the modified version and if it is acceptable to discard it. With header fields, the modified forms can be "saved" into separate fields so the data is not lost. As for the body, such data saving is not viable. --ewh _______________________________________________ ietf-dkim mailing list http://dkim.org
