> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org] 
> On Behalf Of John R. Levine
> Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 7:59 AM
> To: dcroc...@bbiw.net
> Cc: DKIM List
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] layer violations, was detecting header mutations 
> after signing
> 
> If allowing through modified messages that render very differently
> isn't broken, shouldn't we remove the advice against signing with l=0?
> The advice in favor of signing Subject: and To: fields?  None of those
> has any technical effect on the ability of a verifier to compute and
> compare hashes.
> 
> If not, what's the difference, other than the fact that we thought of
> some of them several years ago and just noticed these last week?

The difference is that the Subject:, To: and l= advice don't dabble in the area 
of having to tell a DKIM implementer to enforce parts of other protocols.

Adding a second From: makes the message format illegal.  The other ones don't.


_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

Reply via email to