[ietf-dkim] Not exactly not a threat analysis
mike at mtcc.com
Wed Aug 17 09:02:27 PDT 2005
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
More information about the ietf-dkim