> -----Original Message----- > From: Michael Thomas [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2010 9:21 AM > To: Murray S. Kucherawy > Cc: Rolf E. Sonneveld; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] MLMs and the use of multipart/alternative to > preserve original DKIM signature and at the same time add a new DKIM > signature > > > But didn't we also say that such reverified signatures don't get any > > additional meaning with 'z=' reprocessing? > > Sorry, I don't understand.
I guess I don't either. You're saying use of "l=" and "z=" got your mail-through-lists signature verification statistics up to 95%. However, RFC4871 says "Copied header field values are for diagnostic use" which I interpret to mean (and I think discussion on the list back then also agreed) that the information in a "z=" tag isn't supposed to contribute to the canonicalization algorithms, but instead can only be used for diagnostic purposes (i.e., "This signature failed, and via the 'z=' we know why... but it still failed."). -MSK _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
