[ietf-dkim] A few SSP axioms
deepvoice at gmail.com
Wed Aug 2 12:36:32 PDT 2006
On 8/2/06, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
> Damon wrote:
> > Does the DKIM verifier give a hoot about the other Recieved headers?
> No (Assuming they're not signed, and the signer didn't prevent their
> addition using the existing scheme in base.)
> But so far verifiers don't care about whether there're one or two
> or however many signatures either. My question was why additional
> signatures are seen as so bad that you want to tell the verifier
> to dislike them, but other trace headers are not bad enough to
> need that.
As the sender whom signed the message, I want to tell the receiver to trust
mine and ignore (or dislike) the rest. I don't want anyone else to sign in
my place if I am the one signing.
Right? (forgive me I have just been able to follow the DKIM list as of very
Basically, my concern is that this is extending SSP to cover
> something (mail routing) that's not really part of DKIM.
I think the danger is in explicitly saying so. If it has an added benefit, I
wouldn't be trying to avoid bettering the inherent benefits if it does no
harm to the base.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ietf-dkim