Alessandro Vesely wrote:
>> I see these generic possibilities:
>>
>> First party Example:
>>
>> From: [email protected]
>> DKIM-Required: example.com
>> DKIM-Signature: d=example.com h="From:DKIM-Required"
>
> Yes, that's possible, but seems useless. What I've been thinking about is
>
> From: [email protected]
> DKIM-Required: list.example
> DKIM-Signature: d=example.com h="From:DKIM-Required"
>
> If it were agreed that a signature may be not valid unless
> countersigned by the recipient, the risk of replay attacks would be
> greatly diminished.
So in the above, the originating message author is telling the world
that the domain list.example is expected to resign? so it ends up
like this?
From: [email protected]
DKIM-Required: list.example
X-DKIM-Signature: d=example.com h="From:DKIM-Required"
DKIM-Signature: d=list.example.com h="From:DKIM-Required"
X-DKIM-Signature means that it was stripped and/or nullified in the
in distribution. Illustrated above to show there was a change.
Am I reading your proposal correct here?
--
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
