> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Steve Atkins > Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 10:36 PM > To: IETF DKIM WG > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal for new text about multiple header issues > > That still expands the API from the DKIM verifier quite a lot - it > requires the verifier to explicitly list which headers are signed, and > which aren't (that the h= field doesn't do that is what we're having > problems with). It would also require that to be pushed all the way > downstream to other pieces of software, perhaps via something similar > to an extended Authentication-Results type of header. > > That's not impossible, but seems very complex for the specific problem > we're considering - we just need to communicate "This message violated > 5322, specifically in a way that makes us think the sender is trying to > game DKIM" (either by flagging the mail as syntactically invalid and > suspicious at some point in the mail stream, or invalidating the DKIM > signature). > [...]
You seem to have some specific ideas in mind already. Can you propose some alternate text? _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
