John R. Levine wrote: >> Hi Hector, >> At 15:20 14-05-2011, Hector Santos wrote: >>> Shouldn't the MLM I-D say something regarding C14N and CR/LF related >>> mutations? >> No. > > +1 to the No. > > I have my reservations about the draft, but this is not one of them.
In general, I would say NO too because I don't like kludges. My point is that the draft is already peppered with scenarios about how MLM can break things and it properly classifies the known simple "list-like" type of "alias" address expanders that in general, the messages is not altered. Of course, we all know its not the only kind; a real List Server always provides list admin options to not alter things like the IETF-SMTP list seems to be been setup (with mailman?). But here, it appears it does add a extra <CRLF> after the headers. So my question is about whether we should provide an "informative implementator" insight that there may be an extra <CRLF> generated by non-DKIM aware list. It can make all the difference in a valid versus invalid DKIM signed submission to a non-DKIM aware MLM, which BTW, I did add logic to my verifier to check for this extra <CRLF> when a BODY_HASH error first occurs and redo the hash without it. It works! But I am probably going to add a condition based on LIST-ID to enable this check. I fail to see why we would not be interested in giving verifiers some insight into this real live scenario. Is it because its a more general DKIM issue and ideally belongs in RFC4671bis (too late)? -- 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
