The only interesting think dkim does is ensure that the message the receiver see's actually was sent by the purported publisher of that internet bitstream. Who has seen it before offers nothing of interest. thanks
Bill Oxley Messaging Engineer Cox Communications, Inc. Alpharetta GA 404-847-6397 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 1:32 PM To: Barry Leiba Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal for specifying syntax and semantics formultiple signatures Barry Leiba wrote: > Well, the issue is that if, say with the above example, signer #3 signs > the other three signature headers, and then the next hop re-orders them, > the verifier can still figure out which records signed which others. So what? There are many "interesting" things that we might build into a protocol. The question is what compelling need is served by the feature? Each feature makes the protocol more complex and therefore raises the adoption barrier. So we should feel obligated to explain why a feature offers long-term, strategic benefits. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://bbiw.net> _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html