SM wrote: > Hi Hector, > At 21:40 14-05-2011, Hector Santos wrote: >> Can't share the wisdom why? > > It's merely an opinion. Please see Murray's comment about a slippery > slope.
I understand the point. But we are doing all this already like section 3.3 Current MLM Effects On Signatures; Minor body changes. It says: Minor body changes: Some lists prepend or append a few lines to each message to remind subscribers of an administrative URL for subscription issues, or of list policy, etc. The sentence can include or be extended: In addition, some list changes are not obvious and may be just an extra line between the header and start of the body. This a MLM mail integrity deviation just like all the other obscure MLM mail integrity issues we can have. I personally would like to extend it to say: This is an C14N issue that is out of scope but its possible invalid signatures can be valid when the extra line is removed from the hashing. Again, this is a real live MLM stream scenario. Why doesn't anyone care about addressing these types of MLM streams? This is suppose to be an informative guide about the issues retrofitting an MLM with DKIM. Not the other way around. Why not provide the insights, all the issues and let the verifier decide? Why not let the MLM developer learn what his software might be doing so he might fix it? -- 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