Dave CROCKER:
>
>
> On 10/8/2010 9:28 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> > I'm still cringing at the layering violation of "fixing" in DKIM the fact
> > that many RFC5322 implementations, MTAs, MSAs and MUAs alike, don't bother
> > to enforce normative portions of that specification.
> >
> > Is there precedent of this being done elsewhere, i.e. compensating in one
> > protocol for abundant lousy implementations of a layer below it?
>
>
> I'm a bit confused.
>
> We want to re-submit DKIM Signing to Proposed Standard, in order to fix an
> edge
> condition that is only a theoretical issue and only fixes a problem that is
> actually outside of the scope of what DKIM is trying to achieve?
If I understand things correctly, the solution is already available
in DKIM today. It involves signer configuration (sign for N+1
instances of each header that is covered by the signature) and
requires no change in protocol or semantics. It merely hardens the
DKIM signature and I see nothing wrong with doing so.
If I am mistaken then please correct me.
Wietse
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
