> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:ietf-dkim- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of John R. Levine > Sent: Friday, May 29, 2009 5:22 PM > To: Barry Leiba > Cc: DKIM List > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] chained signatures, was l= summary > > >> DKIM is too complicated as it is, and it strikes me as an extremely > poor > >> idea to add yet more cruft to work around perverse situations that are > as > >> yet (and probably always) entirely hypothetical. > > > > I don't understand what "cruft" you think I'm talking about. > > Telling people that it is reasonable to add a chain of A-R headers to > messages with broken signatures, and expecting recipients to apply some > ill defined algorithm to decide how much they believe each level of > alleged signature. > > 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. > > R's, > John >
+1 _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
