On 22 May 2011, at 15:44, John R. Levine wrote: >> Interesting, but not less intricate. The semantics of authenticating >> only the armored part of a message is not obvious. Resorting to >> base64 encoding is subject to varying interpretations, including >> spammers attempts to avoid naive content filtering. > > S/MIME and PGP MIME have been doing just that, authenticating just an > armored MIME body, for close to 20 years. Your MUA probably has > support for S/MIME built in.
It does. It tells me that your MIME signature was incorrect. > This is a wheel we do not need to > reinvent. > > R's, > John_______________________________________________ > NOTE WELL: This list operates according to > http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html -- Ian Eiloart Postmaster, University of Sussex +44 (0) 1273 87-3148 _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
