On 28/Oct/10 03:36, Douglas Otis wrote:
I'll repeat the example given previously. The multiple listing of a
header in the h= parameter can not mitigate exploitation of DKIM PASS
results where a valuable domain is prefixed to that of large domain.
The large domain is unlikely concerned by
On 25/Oct/10 06:54, Steve Atkins wrote:
On Oct 24, 2010, at 9:05 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
3) For any header field listed in Section 3.6 of [MAIL] as having
an upper bound on the number of times it can appear, include the
name of that field one extra time in the “h=” portion of the
Hi,
unfortunately I didn't have the time to do a full review of 4871bis, but
there's one thing I'd like to draw attention to.
In the original text of RFC4871 DKIM was described as:
DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) defines a mechanism by which email
messages can be cryptographically
Rolf E. Sonneveld wrote:
Hi,
unfortunately I didn't have the time to do a full review of 4871bis, but
there's one thing I'd like to draw attention to.
In the original text of RFC4871 DKIM was described as:
DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) defines a mechanism by which email
messages
