On Friday, October 08, 2010 12:33:38 pm Dave CROCKER wrote: > On 10/8/2010 9:28 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > > I'm still cringing at the layering violation of "fixing" in DKIM the fact > > that many RFC5322 implementations, MTAs, MSAs and MUAs alike, don't > > bother to enforce normative portions of that specification. > > > > Is there precedent of this being done elsewhere, i.e. compensating in one > > protocol for abundant lousy implementations of a layer below it? > > I'm a bit confused. > > We want to re-submit DKIM Signing to Proposed Standard, in order to fix an > edge condition that is only a theoretical issue and only fixes a problem > that is actually outside of the scope of what DKIM is trying to achieve? > > d/
Detecting modification in transit is outside the scope of what DKIM is trying to achieve? Scott K _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
