--On Thursday, May 05, 2011 23:37 -0400 John R Levine
<[email protected]> wrote:
>> That is pretty much where I was headed, but this seems like a
>> better way to make the statement. Want to suggest text and
>> where to put it?
>
> Hmmn. On page 11, just before section 8.1:
> If a incoming message includes a DKIM or other signature,
> sites SHOULD consider what effect message modifications will
> have on the validity of the signature, and MAY use the
> presence or absence of a signature as a criterion when
> deciding what, if any, modifications to make.
Generally, wfm. Noting that the text is (deliberately) broad
enough to cover body part encoding modifications as well as
those that do integrity checks on headers, so it seems unwise,
and possibly misleading, to single out DKIM. Unless someone
objects, I'll make that "DKIM, PGP, S/MIME or other..." and add
the appropriate citations.
I-D should be posted, or at least awaiting approval from the
co-chairs, later today
john
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
