First blank line after DATA. Whether that affords sufficient value-add is an open question to me and probably others.
d/ Ian Eiloart wrote: > > > --On 29 October 2009 09:45:31 -0400 Dave CROCKER <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote: >>>> ... if they can do so, you accept the entire email. >>>> >>>> In either case you accept the entire email, >>> >>> Not necessarily. .... > > .... >> I was just at a session at an industry trade association where the >> question of doing DKIM during SMTP came up. There were operations folk >> who very much liked the idea of being able to obtain some DKIM benefit >> during the SMTP session, before the dot... >> >> No one suggested modifying SMTP or DKIM specifications. >> >> What /was/ discussed was the possibility of doing a signature that would >> validate before DATA. This merely requires a signature that does not >> cover the body. >> >> I can't say that anyone sounded hugely enthusiastic about this, but given >> that there was interest in SMTP-time benefit, I think they just needed >> to think about this more. > >> Having two signatures, with one covering the body and relevant parts of >> the message header, and the other only covering the header, strike me as >> a plausible use of DKIM, worth considering. I've no idea whether it >> would provide any or enough value-add. However it is only a stylized >> use of the existing standard, and so the cost of experimenting with it >> is reasonable. > > So, how do you get the headers without the body? > >> >> d/ > > > -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
