Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > Current implementations, especially the two library ones that > are referenced most often in here, haven't the functionality to > cause header fields to be removed, prefixed, reordered, modified, > etc. This change would require them to be overhauled to extend > their reach into what the MTA can do. That expansion of scope > of "DKIM process" to me requires a recycle at Proposed Standard.
What started all this is one of these API dealing with it with the verification and I pointing this out. However, we did not know why it did this and we later found out. Their solution was only on the verification side with an added requirement that all 5322.From be signed - the default behavior. So any belated injection of a 5322.From header would invalidate the signature which I believe will cover the majority of the loophole. -- Hector Santos, CTO http://www.santronics.com http://santronics.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
