Just on one portion, here: On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Doug Otis <[email protected]> wrote: > Some systems handle message attachments separately, and at times may exclude > attachments. Eventually, a practice similar to DKIM should be established > to separately encapsulate attachments. Once such a convention exists, > separating message attachment hashes will better ensure textual portions of > a message can be handled independently from that of message attachments.
Hm. I should think that the DKIM way to handle the removal of attachments would be for the agent that remove the attachments to re-sign the message after it does so. Barry _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
