On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 05:55:38 +0100, John R. Levine <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Assuming this is some other protocol layers problem; to ensure >> consistency >> between any possible display and DKIM validation, ... > > ... is, for about the hundredth time, not DKIM's job. > > Please chant "we have no idea how MUAs will display mail" over and over > until you believe it. This includes valid 5322 mail. Precisely so. Which is why, this being a secuity protocol, we have to presume that MUAs will do whatever will make life most difficult from a DKIM POV, and design a protocol which works in spite of that. This we have signally failed to do. In the present situation, we need to presume that MUAs will display the first instance only of any duplicated header (which is a pretty safe presumption given that the most communly used MUA does just that). The AD has been made aware of this problem, and has concluded that the present 3.8 will suffice (though he has caused a missing reference to the proper oart of section 8 to be added). Whilst I disagree with his conclusion, I have decided not to take the matter any further (and Doug and Rolf are aware of my decision). -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: [email protected] Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
