> Yes, it ties an identifier to a bag of bits, and yes it specifies what
> those bits are, but it really does deal only with those bits and not
> (necessarily) the entire message.
Technically. you are correct. Semantically, that's silly.
We went through backflips trying to figure out how to de
On 10/16/2010 10:26 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
>> Yes, it ties an identifier to a bag of bits, and yes it specifies what
>> those bits are, but it really does deal only with those bits and not
>> (necessarily) the entire message.
>
> Technically. you are correct. Semantically, that's silly.
>
> W
On 10/16/10 4:50 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
> On 10/16/2010 10:26 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
>>> Yes, it ties an identifier to a bag of bits, and yes it specifies what
>>> those bits are, but it really does deal only with those bits and not
>>> (necessarily) the entire message.
>> Technically. you
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Dave CROCKER
> Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 10:50 AM
> To: John R. Levine
> Cc: DKIM List
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] sophistry is bad, was
On Saturday, October 16, 2010 10:50:25 am Dave CROCKER wrote:
> On 10/16/2010 10:26 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
> >> Yes, it ties an identifier to a bag of bits, and yes it specifies what
> >> those bits are, but it really does deal only with those bits and not
> >> (necessarily) the entire message.
Far be it for me to defend Dave, but I think you two are in
violent agreement. I think you misread some of Dave's comment
because they were posed as rhetorical.
Mike
On 10/16/2010 11:56 AM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Saturday, October 16, 2010 10:50:25 am Dave CROCKER wrote:
>> On 10/16/2010 10:
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Scott Kitterman
> Sent: Saturday, October 16, 2010 11:56 AM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] sophistry is bad, was Data integrity
gt; To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] sophistry is bad, was Data integrity claims
> >
> > > The current DKIM spec does not answer these questions and easily
> > > permits protecting very little of the message. Almost certainly too
> > > little t
