> -----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 10:15 AM > To: DKIM List > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] layer violations, was detecting header mutations > after signing > > Am I really the only person who wants to be able to whitelist mail signed > with known good signatures, drop it into user inboxes and expect > reasonable results with existing MUAs?
Not only do I want that, I did that. But the DKIM/ADSP module of that system is purely DKIM/ADSP. The module that sits between the MTA and the DKIM/ADSP module does the header count enforcement we're talking about, knowing there's the potential for invalid mush in there. You don't have to do it that way in the source code to make it work properly if some other design makes sense for you, but that is the delineation that should appear in the normative parts of protocol specifications. I'm talking purely about specification here. I'm totally fine with one omnibus implementation that does everything from SMTP server right up to a webmail rendering if that's what you want to do. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html