On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 8:41 AM, John C Klensin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > --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.
+1 -- Jeff Macdonald Ayer, MA _______________________________________________ yam mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
