>> DKIM is too complicated as it is, and it strikes me as an extremely poor >> idea to add yet more cruft to work around perverse situations that are as >> yet (and probably always) entirely hypothetical. > > I don't understand what "cruft" you think I'm talking about.
Telling people that it is reasonable to add a chain of A-R headers to messages with broken signatures, and expecting recipients to apply some ill defined algorithm to decide how much they believe each level of alleged signature. I would really like to remove l= from DKIM to make it clear that it is not a good idea to even try to guess the history of a message based on signatures that don't verify and cover the whole messag. R's, John _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
