> -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org] > On Behalf Of Charles Lindsey > Sent: Monday, October 18, 2010 4:24 AM > To: DKIM > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] layer violations, was detecting header mutations > after signing > > > Irrelevant for the current discussion. > > On the contrary, that is precisely the attack of interest, so it is > supremely relevant. You claim it can be thwarted by other means, but have > failed to explain exactly how those "other means" would work.
On the contrary, none of this is within the prescribed scope of DKIM. ADSP and reputation (the latter of which is explicitly out of scope) are predicated on DKIM's output, not part of its input or its mechanics. These topics are distractions from the effort of solidifying the DKIM specification for advancement along the standards track. That's what I believe he means by "irrelevant for the current discussion". _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
