[ietf-dkim] editorials and nits

[Jim Fenton]

John Levine wrote:
>> If the verifier doesn't like the l= tag, they should just reject the
>> signature, rather than bother doing the math to verify it.
>>     
>
> Don't do that.  In the presumably common case where the message hasn't
> had anything added to it in transit, you ignore l= and the signature
> verifies just fine.  I suppose as a microoptimization you could
> prescan the body and fail if the length is wrong.
>   
Agreed.  That would be the effect of "ignoring" the l- tag -- in the
sense of actually removing it from the signature -- which is why that's
not a good thing to do.

-Jim

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/attachments/20060705/0839852f/attachment.html