Why would one care at all about when a sig was signed? A sig will either pass muster or fail, if passed t=$date < curr_date raises a question of expiration for the verifier. Obtaining the actual timestamp of when the message was actually signed doesn't have much value for me.
Bill Oxley Messaging Engineer Cox Communications, Inc. Alpharetta GA 404-847-6397 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Delany Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2006 1:07 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal: get rid of x= On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 09:11:53PM -0700, Dave Crocker allegedly wrote: > > > John R Levine wrote: > >Without t= we have no idea when a message was signed, since there's no > >particular reason that the Date: header has to contain the current date, > >or even that there be one. > > > And -- just to quibble a bit, but in a *nice* way -- it would not matter > even if it did contain the "current" date. > > The Date field specifies the time of posting. > > Signing might take place at any time after that (or even before that.) So, color me slow. We know for sure that signing happened in the past. What specific value do we place on how far in the past that signing occurred? What code do I write to test that specific value and what do you recommend that a verifier do with such knowledge? Mark. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
