On 8/24/2011 12:56 PM, S Moonesamy wrote:
I don't have a problem with the approach the new text takes, but I don't
understand why the reference to S/MIME was dropped. It seems likely
it was an unintentional omission, and if so I suggest it be restored.
The reference to S/MIME may have been dropped unintentionally.
damn. sorry. /absolutely/ unintentional.
Would this work for you:
"Message modification can affect the validity of an existing message
signature, such as by DKIM [DKIM], PGP [RFC4880], S/MIME [RFC5751]
and can render the signature invalid. This, in turn, can affect
message handling by later receivers, such as filtering engines that
consider the presence or absence of a valid signature."
+1
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
yam mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
