On 10/07/2010 03:40 AM, Charles Lindsey wrote: > On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 13:00:25 +0100, Steve Atkins<st...@wordtothewise.com> > wrote: > >> On Oct 6, 2010, at 1:47 AM, Mark Delany wrote: > >>> Right. We could attempt to enumerate the 1,000 edge-cases we know >>> today and then re-bis 4871 for the additional 1,000 edge-cases we >>> learn tomorrow, or we could simply say that invalid 2822 messages >>> MUST never verify and call it a day. >> >> To comply with that MUST every DKIM verifier would have to >> include a full 5322 verifier. That's a fairly high bar. > > No, that is not true, as I have demonstrated in the text I have proposed. > > You only need to look at whatever headers are actually mentioned in the > "h=" tag of the signature, and you only need to verify those properties of > those headers that could lead to trouble, and that would seem to be a > simple count of the number of occurrences of those headers.
I'm with Steve on this one. Forcing implementations of DKIM to determine whether a message is compliant is a pretty high bar. I for one wouldn't be in any particular big hurry to add a batch of code to insure that that MUST was fulfilled. I doubt anyone else would be either. The net effect of this MUST would be to make a lot of compliant DKIM implementations non-compliant. And for what? I'd say that it would be better to just say that if you sign a non-compliant 5322 message that its verification is undefined, and move on. That at least matches reality, and hasn't hurt anything that I'm aware of. Mike _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
