It appears that William Weiner <[email protected]> said: >The general principle as you have stated it - that absence of a prior chain >must not be treated as a negative indicator for an i=1 signature, >whoever produced it - is the right language and I support seeing it in adopted >text.
It sounds like you're saying that if my spambot puts List-Id and the like in the spam and signs it with i=1 to make it look like it's reoriginating, it gets a free pass. If that's not what you're saying, please clarify. R's, John _______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
