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 g
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
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 a
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
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
[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 Ov
ginal Message-
> 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: mul
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 an
