Re: [ietf-dkim] mutant message validation, was Base issue: multiplelinked signatures

2007-01-11 Thread Douglas Otis
On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 22:52 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: [Must sign the From header.] This has nothing to do with the originator address and everything to do with signing the required elements of the message. Taken to an extreme, there are reasons why any part of the message might get

Re: [ietf-dkim] mutant message validation, was Base issue: multiplelinked signatures

2007-01-10 Thread Dave Crocker
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +1 -Original Message- From: Michael Thomas Wietse Venema wrote: Perhaps some people are confusing verification and presentation. I really don't understand all of this hand wringing about True Verification vs. Mutant Verification Intent on Taking Over

Re: [ietf-dkim] mutant message validation, was Base issue: multiplelinked signatures

2007-01-10 Thread Douglas Otis
On Jan 10, 2007, at 7:33 AM, Dave Crocker wrote: Wietse Venema wrote: Perhaps some people are confusing verification and presentation. I really don't understand all of this hand wringing about True Verification vs. Mutant Verification Intent on Taking Over Earth. The protocol document

Re: [ietf-dkim] mutant message validation, was Base issue: multiplelinked signatures

2007-01-10 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Wednesday 10 January 2007 17:01, Douglas Otis wrote: The base draft requires the From header be signed. This header might become modified for EAI compliance. We've been through this before. IIRC, we included 2822-From because it's a mandatory part of the message. If you don't sign it,

Re: [ietf-dkim] mutant message validation, was Base issue: multiplelinked signatures

2007-01-10 Thread Douglas Otis
On Jan 10, 2007, at 2:19 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: On Wednesday 10 January 2007 17:01, Douglas Otis wrote: The base draft requires the From header be signed. This header might become modified for EAI compliance. We've been through this before. IIRC, we included 2822-From because it's

Re: [ietf-dkim] mutant message validation, was Base issue: multiplelinked signatures

2007-01-10 Thread Scott Kitterman
On Wednesday 10 January 2007 21:54, Douglas Otis wrote: On Jan 10, 2007, at 2:19 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: On Wednesday 10 January 2007 17:01, Douglas Otis wrote: The base draft requires the From header be signed. This header might become modified for EAI compliance. We've been

RE: [ietf-dkim] mutant message validation, was Base issue: multiplelinked signatures

2007-01-05 Thread Bill.Oxley
message validation, was Base issue: multiplelinked signatures Wietse Venema wrote: John Levine: From my perspective having a message have a valid signature with one implementation and having a broken signature with another is an incompatibility. I don't think that's speculation

RE: [ietf-dkim] mutant message validation, was Base issue: multiplelinked signatures

2007-01-05 Thread Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Thomas Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 12:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] mutant message validation, was Base issue: multiplelinked signatures Wietse Venema wrote