[ietf-dkim] Revised proposal for specifying syntax and semantics for multiple signatures

[Paul Hoffman]

At 6:50 PM +0100 4/4/06, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>Take some list related header field and two signers - the 1st signer
>being the 1st outbound MTA and the 2nd signer being the list s/w (or
>some other adjacent signer, whatever).
>
>For some reason the originator doesn't want that list header field to
>be signed, so he puts "h=<<list-field>>" even though there's on such
>header on the message he signed.
>
>Later the list adds a list-field header field and then adds its
>signature (over whatever header fields, doesn't matter).
>
>Now, as I understand it, its guaranteed that the 1st signature will
>not verify. The second will, or won't, depending on the usual stuff.
>
>My question was whether or not a reminder about this behaviour
>would be useful.

It might be useful somewhere in the document, but not in the 
description of p=, given that we ust took out the "I did or did not 
verify the earlier signatures" stuff.