Re: [ietf-dkim] Take two (was Re: Proposal for new text about multiple header issues)

2010-10-27 Thread Alessandro Vesely
On 26/Oct/10 19:08, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely On 26/Oct/10 06:58, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: a verifying module might return a syntax error code or arrange not to return a positive result even if the signature technically validates. -1. How does might

Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal for new text about multiple header issues

2010-10-27 Thread Douglas Otis
On 10/25/10 9:36 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: On Monday, October 25, 2010 2:48 PM, Douglas Otis wrote: 1) During the handling of a message in conjunction with a DKIM result that indicates a valid signature, consider as valid only those fields and the body portion that was covered by the

Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal for new text about multiple header issues

2010-10-27 Thread Hector Santos
Douglas Otis wrote: I'm having trouble parsing that. Please propose alternate text, or show an example of what you're describing. I'll repeat the example given previously. The multiple listing of a header in the h= parameter can not mitigate exploitation of DKIM PASS results where a