-Original Message-
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely
Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2010 10:55 PM
To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Broken signatures, was Why mailing lists
should strip them
On 30/Apr/10 08:50, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely Sent: Thursday, April
29, 2010 10:55 PM
Yet, it would seem that by, say, hashing just invariants of binary
representations of the first entity, e.g. discarding its white space and
In article 4bda70b5.4090...@tana.it you write:
On 29/Apr/10 01:12, SM wrote:
The diversity
of the email environment is such that you cannot come up with a
mellowed canonicalization to cope with every possible change.
Yet, it would seem that by, say, hashing just invariants of binary
On 29/Apr/10 01:12, SM wrote:
The diversity
of the email environment is such that you cannot come up with a
mellowed canonicalization to cope with every possible change.
Yet, it would seem that by, say, hashing just invariants of binary
representations of the first entity, e.g. discarding its
At 11:27 27-04-10, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
At any rate, all what I'm trying to say is that a few certified
fields, e.g. From:, To:, and Date:, are more useful than a
broken signature, in most cases.
Yes, they are. RFC 4871 describes what is being covered by the DKIM
Signature. For the sake of
On 28/Apr/10 12:58, SM wrote:
At 11:27 27-04-10, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
At any rate, all what I'm trying to say is that a few certified
fields, e.g. From:, To:, and Date:, are more useful than a
broken signature, in most cases.
Yes, they are. RFC 4871 describes what is being covered by the
At 09:58 28-04-10, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
Do you have specific examples? Could a mellowed canonicalization
cope with them?
There is a MTA that was doing changes to the message headers after a
message has been signed. The implementation made allowances for
changes after signing such as the
On 26/Apr/10 15:59, John Levine wrote:
I'm willing to accept a signature with l= so long as it covers the
entire message. I agree that partial coverage is not practically
distinguished from no coverage.
I note you refer to /current/ --rather than possible or commendable--
practice
Sorry, I
