On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 08:01:17PM +0200, Alessandro Vesely allegedly wrote: > On 13/Oct/10 20:45, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > On Wednesday, October 13, 2010 12:54:23 pm Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > >> If we can extract DKIM from the equation entirely and the problem remains, > >> how is it a DKIM problem? > > > > If the DKIM signature doesn't verify after signed headers have been altered, > > then it's not. > > Correct. And the way that it fails to verify is h=from:from.
Which strikes me as an ugly hack. Given that most headers should only occur once and given that a lot of signers sign most headers doesn't this suggestion degenerate to h=from:from:subject:subject:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:list-id:list-id? Mark. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
