On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 01:21 +, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
> > Would the term signature-overlay or perhaps signature-masking be okay?
>
> Were it me, I'd first consult the literature before inventing
> any new terminology related to digital signatures. At the least,
> I'd first ask someone who's
Doug,
Douglas Otis wrote:
On Sun, 2006-01-22 at 18:46 +, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Douglas Otis wrote:
The signature header is not removed,
just the 'b=base64' is obfuscated with a result indicating whether the
MDA verified the signature upon acceptance.
I hate to do this yet again, but t
On Sun, 2006-01-22 at 18:57 +0100, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Douglas Otis wrote:
>
> > The DKIM signature however indicates the AdmD providing
> > initial access and not just the last hop.
>
> Your X + Z example sounded like Z getting X's newsletters
> directly (MON X to MRN Z).
This example was
On Sun, 2006-01-22 at 18:46 +, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Douglas Otis wrote:
> > The signature header is not removed,
> > just the 'b=base64' is obfuscated with a result indicating whether the
> > MDA verified the signature upon acceptance.
>
> I hate to do this yet again, but the term obfusc
Douglas Otis wrote:
The signature header is not removed,
just the 'b=base64' is obfuscated with a result indicating whether the
MDA verified the signature upon acceptance.
I hate to do this yet again, but the term obfuscation is taken,
and not for what you mean, which confuses me at least. Q
Douglas Otis wrote:
> The DKIM signature however indicates the AdmD providing
> initial access and not just the last hop.
Your X + Z example sounded like Z getting X's newsletters
directly (MON X to MRN Z). For that case reducing it to
the one critical hop where one of X's MTAs determined one
of
On Sun, 2006-01-22 at 10:25 +0100, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Douglas Otis wrote:
>
> > A Low Administrative Solution Insensitive to High Latency:
>
> > Just as email domains check lists when deciding to receive a
> > message, they now also check a list to decide whether to
> > sign, or perhaps ev
Douglas Otis wrote:
> A Low Administrative Solution Insensitive to High Latency:
> Just as email domains check lists when deciding to receive a
> message, they now also check a list to decide whether to
> sign, or perhaps even send a message.
> With this paradigm, as a best practice, to ensure
