Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote: > Although DKIM does not specify (as far as I know) what to do with DKIM > signatures in inner bodyparts, I think DKIM signatures should never be > removed without a good reason.
If you believe this, then you have to advocate the removal of the RFC 4871 mandate regarding invalid signatures changing to no-signature status as if it never existed and the message was never signed. What this means is that if a MLM keeps broken tracings of signatures, the only existing trace signature is the valid one. All others must be ignored. -- Hector Santos, CTO http://www.santronics.com http://santronics.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
