[ietf-dkim] one more comment I forgot...

[Stephen Farrell]

Yes, but mucking up a signature is already covered in the
draft whereas totally ditching one isn't.

(Perhaps "forwarder" wasn't the right term - if not, mea
culpa.)

S.

Bill.Oxley at cox.com wrote:
> If a forwarder "didn't" strip a signature from the message, after
> decoding the hash and comparing to the information of the forwarding MTA
> it wouldn't match anyway, would still invoke some rule on the receiving
> entity would it not?
> 
> Bill Oxley 
> Messaging Engineer 
> Cox Communications, Inc. 
> Alpharetta GA 
> 404-847-6397 
> bill.oxley at cox.com 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org
> [mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell
> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 10:52 AM
> To: ietf-dkim at mipassoc.org
> Subject: [ietf-dkim] one more comment I forgot...
> 
> 
> ...or rather hadn't thought of.
> 
> This could be added as "middling" comment #6:
> 
> Signature deletion. A mail forwarder might accidentally or
> deliberately strip the signature from a message. If the
> recipient has previously seen signed messages from that origin,
> then strange behaviour might ensue. Similarly if the recipient
> is using some policy support like SSP then it might treat the
> mail less kindly and in a way that'd maybe be hard to figure out.
> 
> I don't know if this could be a real problem or not (would
> lean towards "not" I guess) but I suppose its worth thinking
> about, even if only to give us one "low/low" entry in one of
> the tables:-)
> 
> Stephen.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ietf-dkim mailing list
> http://dkim.org
> 
>