> -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org] > On Behalf Of Jim Fenton > Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 10:42 AM > To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Collected data > > [sticking with Murray's subject line so as not to create two thread > breakages!] > > I don't have any data on how many messages had DK signatures as well as > DKIM signatures, but at least some do (I checked some I received). I > don't quite understand your question. The ambiguity that is created > has to do with the DKIM result, not the DK result.
With this change, a DKIM signature referencing a "g=" key might verify if the verifier elects to enable this backward compatibility feature. Without this change (i.e. the more strict posture), a DKIM signature referencing a "g=" key won't verify ever. But that's the same as an unsigned message. The harm in the apparent ambiguity seems minimal; it's no worse than if the signature or key was completely malformed somehow. So is the distinction important? _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
