On Jun 26, 2008, at 12:56 PM, J.D. Falk wrote: > On 26/06/2008 10:53, "Dave Crocker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> But the idea that anyone would think that a signing mechanism >> designed to >> operate on RFC 2822 messages would somehow be expected to operate >> successfully >> on non-conformant messages really bothers me. > > And yet, those questions keep coming up -- even from people we'd > expect to > understand what a correctly formed RFC 2822 message looks like.
If this issue were to become a problem, it could handled by mail filters. Such exploits would then be strong and easily gathered evidence the message is a phish. -Doug _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
