> result of software layers that render those bits. DKIM has no > control over that rendering process.
Really? Do you mean doesn't or shouldn't or can't? Apropos layering violations: are we saying that having a UA inject message 'A' via a DKIM layer into the mail stream, and then having some random/malicious goop cause message 'B' to pop out of the DKIM rabbit hole at the other end is less of a layer violation than ensuring that message 'A' comes out that rabbit hole? That seems odd. Even if layer-violation is viewed by some as an immutable law, there is some argument that allow the 'B' rabbit to pop out is failing that law. Mark. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html