> discussions of multiple signatures, multiple *linked* signatures, > which could work TOGETHER to convey information, and the protocol > doesn't allow that sort of thing.
We have certainly beaten to death the issue of whether signatures can or should survive mailing lists, an aspect of the underlying argument about whether a list is an endpoint or a forwarder. I think we can all agree this is not an argument we're going to resolve any time soon. I don't understand what the security model of linked signatures would be, and I doubt anyone else does, either. Since DKIM allows multiple signatures now, and allows you to put private fields in the signature header, there's plenty of tools available for people to experiment, and if the experiments pan out, add linking in DKIM N+1. But it strikes me as a poor idea to make a change this basic on short notice at this late date.. Regards, John Levine, [EMAIL PROTECTED], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
