On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 5:22 PM, John R. Levine <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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.
What part of my message makes you think that's what I'm suggesting? Surely not the part where I say, "Chaining isn't the point.". And it certainly can't be the part where I say, "remove all previous sigs AND all previous A-R". I think it's a terrible idea to (1) leave signatures in a message after you break them, (2) add A-R without removing any already there, or (3) add A-R without a signature covering it. Or are you just trolling? > 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. Yes, that seems to be the consensus, and I agree with that. Barry, as participant _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
