Jim Fenton:
> Thanks for the summary, Stephen.
>
> Stephen Farrell wrote:
> >
> > - There are arguments that supporting both original and
> > mail-list signatures would be useful, but there are
> > also difficulties with this in particular adding the
> > mail-list signature will often break the original
> > signature. (If the mail-list signature only covers
> > the content and certain headers like List-Id then
> > this might work better).
> I didn't find the original mention of this, but I'm not clear on why
> adding a mail-list signature would break the original. It's just an
> additional header field, and unless the original signature was
> constructed to prevent that (by including DKIM-Signature in the h=
> headers) there shouldn't be a problem. What might break the original
> signatures is the modifications to the message that necessitated the
> mail-list signature.
When the list server's DKIM signature covers a FROM: header with
an address in some unrelated domain, would not this be considered
a third-party signature? This would be avoided by having the list
sign only the headers that identify the list.
Wietse
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org
