On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 14:18:45 +0100, Wietse Venema <wie...@porcupine.org> wrote:
> My preference would be to enforce this within the existing protocol > (that is: send h=from:from:subject:subject...), But that only copes with some of the scams that are possible; for full protection you need > ... but I could live > with hard-coded checks for unsigned single-instance RFC 5322 and > MIME headers (that is: no DKIM PASS for unsigned "extra" From, > Subject, MIME-Version, Content-type, etc. headers). -- 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
