--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/ -- Ian Eiloart IT Services, University of Sussex 01273-873148 x3148 For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/ _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
