On Oct 15, 2010, at 9:50 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org] >> On Behalf Of Charles Lindsey >> Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 7:30 AM >> To: DKIM >> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] detecting header mutations after signing >> >> And if we are not going to fix ADSP (yet), then the only way we can stop >> that particular exploit is to fix DKIM. >> >> Arguing that "ADSP is a completely separate discussion" will achieve >> nothing. > > If that's consensus, then we're on the slippery slope of "fixing" DKIM to > deal with flaws at all layers above it. And we'll never be done.
+1. Any bug fixes for ADSP need to be done at the ADSP level. If there's a bug that needs fixing at the DKIM level then if should be something that clearly needs fixing based on DKIM usage. (And I think that the very narrow case of messages that violate 5322 through multiple headers *may* be such, but any justification of that relying on ADSP isn't helpful). Cheers, Steve _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
