[ietf-dkim] DKIM does not claim content is correct
jon at callas.org
Tue Jan 27 13:21:51 PST 2009
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> With DKIM i=, it becomes possible to convey a stable identifier
> (though of
> course there's no guarantee that the identifier is stable, leading
> to John's
> t= suggestion.) Without DKIM (or something like it), as we know, any
> potential identifiers are trivially forged.
I want to point out as well that a stable identifier doesn't have to
be a field in the DKIM header.
It's trivial to make a new header for the stable identifier and have
that be in the list of headers signed.
I believe that this is even a *better* solution than trying to make i=
be something that it is and cannot be, and better than adding in a new
That DKIM-base allows, supports, and encourages a way to have
additional headers that are signed is a major feature. We should
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Universal 2.6.3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the ietf-dkim