Well a broken signature is morally equivalent to unsigned so Im not sure of the potential harm... On Oct 15, 2010, at 11:53 AM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
> > > On 10/15/2010 11:40 AM, Mark Delany wrote: >> Well, if you want to introduce semantic changes why not just change >> the meaning of h=from:to: to be semantically identical to >> h=from:from:to:to: > > > This would mean that it is /never/ ok to add a listed header field after > signing. Adding would /always/ break the signature. > > That's a very powerful semantic change. > > I've no idea that it's completely safe. It seems like it ought to be, but I > worry about corner cases. > > d/ > > ps. I would expect such a semantic change to require re-cycling the spec at > Proposed. > -- > > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > _______________________________________________ > NOTE WELL: This list operates according to > http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
