> -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org] > On Behalf Of Mark Delany > Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 1:59 PM > To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] detecting header mutations after signing > > > I understand the issues raised by Murray about the slippery > > slope. On the other hand, I would rather see an MUA present nothing > > about DKIM than give a false impression to endusers. > > I can understand the engineering nervousness over crossing layers, but > that seems to me to be conflating the SMTP aspects of an MTA with the > DKIM aspects of an MTA/verifier. > > It strikes me that a DKIM verifier is already well into the business > of 2822 semantics as it knows about headers, header labels, > continuation syntax, header/body boundaries and so on. > > In that light, taking an additional step wrt duplicate headers (or > malformed 2822 in general) is still in the same layer as the verifier.
My objection isn't so much layering within the software, because I know that gets mushy real quick, but layering among the protocol specifications. For example, we wouldn't include in an SMTP specification some text about dealing with fuzzy TCP implementations, and what people are talking about here makes just as much sense to me. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
