[ietf-dkim] Not exactly not a threat analysis

[Michael Thomas]

Keith Moore wrote:
>>>So this is new to you; it's been discussed to death before --
>>and even on the MASS list.
> 
> 
> This is a process issue.  Understanding gained in the previous
> discussion can inform the WG discussion but cannot preempt discussion
> of this issue by the WG - and certainly cannot be used to justify a
> technical flaw in DKIM.  I bring it up now because it might relate to a
> discussion about DKIM's charter.

This is where I get to suggest that you read the archives.

>>PS: as I said, take a look at l= and z= and their implications
>>     for mailing lists.
> 
> 
> IMHO, these are a useful start, but I think they need work.  For
> example, the MUST NOT prohibition against verifiers using the z= field
> seems a bit overstated.

I agree, and it's completely unenforcable so it's rather
silly.

		Mike