[ietf-dkim] Alternative text for semantics of multiple signatures
phoffman at proper.com
Tue Apr 4 15:14:05 PDT 2006
At 10:59 PM +0100 4/4/06, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>If no-one wants to insist on signatures having to be sequential,
>then this could be fairly easy!
Signatures have to be sequential if you sign them, given our current
rules for signing and verifying h=. The question is whether or not we
care about the cases where multiple signed headers get reordered,
thus breaking the signature.
More information about the ietf-dkim