[ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures

[Arvel Hathcock]

I agree with the below.  There is already a means to determine what 
header change broke the signature (assuming a signer is interested in 
providing the necessary data) and assuming a verifier even cares.

-- 
Arvel

Paul Hoffman wrote:
> What is being proposed above is that an additional signature be 
> generated and validated for every "important" header. That is a huge 
> waste of energy, and it will cause massive unnecessary resource usage, 
> particularly for recipients who don't care why a signature might not 
> have validated.
> 
> If the concern is "accidental" breakage, Michael's point is exactly right:
> 
> At 8:36 AM -0800 12/26/06, Michael Thomas wrote:
>> One can already do this by copying the relevant headers into the 
>> signature
>> using z=. I already do this and it works just fine for mailing lists.
> 
> If the concern is "purposeful" breakage, encouraging signers to sign 
> messages covering only the From header and none of the body is 
> incredibly bad. Wayne is exactly right: