On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 17:50:33 +0100, Murray S. Kucherawy <m...@cloudmark.com> 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. If you want to fix ADSP first, then let us hear your proposals, and when we have fixed it we can then go back to finalizing 4871-bis. But may I ramind you that you alreade said: On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 17:46:56 +0100, Murray S. Kucherawy <m...@cloudmark.com> wrote: > The current effort has everything to do with moving DKIM to draft > standard, and nothing at all to do with handling ADSP issues. In which case we have no option but to fix it in DKIM. -- Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------ Tel: +44 161 436 6131 Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl Email: ...@clerew.man.ac.uk snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K. PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5 _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
