On Fri, 29 May 2009 22:22:11 +0100, John R. Levine <[email protected]> wrote:
> I would really like to remove l= from DKIM to make it clear that it is > not > a good idea to even try to guess the history of a message based on > signatures that don't verify and cover the whole messag. Speak for yourself. I see a message with a broken, but otherwise plausible, signature, and that seems on the face of it a genuine message that I might very well care about, then I might well start to play around to see if some small munge of the message might have caused the broken signature. I have often done this in the case of seemingly broken Usenet control messages. Just because a feature is likely to be used only rarely, and then only by people who have a good understanding of the protocol, is no reason to remove that possibility entirely from those people. That is just called "dumbing down", and "dumbing down" is a dumb idea. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: [email protected] snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
