> -----Original Message----- > From: John R. Levine [mailto:jo...@iecc.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 10:07 AM > To: Murray S. Kucherawy > Cc: DKIM List > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] layer violations, was detecting header mutations > after signing > > > Adding a second From: makes the message format illegal. The other > > ones don't. > > We're still talking past each other. You're right, it makes the > message format illegal, but so what?
That makes it invalid input to any module that requires input to comply with RFC5322, pure and simple. > Historically, there has been no reason for MUAs to enforce format > compliance on incoming messages. I get the impression that people expect > that to change. But why would it? "To catch stuff that DKIM chose not > to" isn't very compelling. I think if it becomes well-known that users of MUA 1 are easier to phish than users of MUA 2, a lot of people will gravitate to the safer implementation, don't you? I sure would. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
