[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Better DKIM Verification Example Needed
- To: Earl Hood <earl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Better DKIM Verification Example Needed
- From: Michael Thomas <mike@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2005 07:38:17 -0700
- Authentication-results: fasolt.mtcc.com; header.Fromfirstname.lastname@example.org; dkim=pass ( message from mtcc.com verified; );
- Cc: ietf-mailsig <ietf-mailsig@xxxxxxx>
- Dkim-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=722; t=1122561498; x=1122993698; c=nowsp; s=nebraska; h=Subject:From:Date; d=mtcc.com; email@example.com; z=Subject:Re=3A=20Better=20DKIM=20Verification=20Example=20Needed| From:Michael=20Thomas=20<firstname.lastname@example.org>| Date:Thu,=2028=20Jul=202005=2007=3A38=3A17=20-0700; b=S2+PQ0By1KR1QOFcqlFjZMUPAm3y24rO5cJWQYEvy3U7ecEEwkdE9ReQNYzE1aw3Q0n8kv0g qQphnUxQc1dnKA==;
- In-reply-to: <>
- List-archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-mailsig/mail-archive/>
- List-id: <ietf-mailsig.imc.org>
- List-unsubscribe: <mailto:email@example.com?body=unsubscribe>
- References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
- Sender: owner-ietf-mailsig@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050324 Thunderbird/1.0.2 Fedora/1.0.2-1.3.2 Mnenhy/0.7.2.0
Earl Hood wrote:
On July 27, 2005 at 15:26, Michael Thomas wrote:
IMO, it is much cleaner to have the signature in its own header
field so header field canonicalization is uniform across all
What happens if you have more than one signature? I don't see it as
any cleaner and in fact it looks like it adds complexity to me.
I'm assuming the complexity is associating the signature data
with the meta-info data. If the header fields are the same
name, their proximity together determines what goes with what.
I believe Ned stated in the past that re-arranging of same-named
header fields does not happen, or is extremely rare.
I don't understand what is to be gained, and I see a lot of
extra processing, complexity, and chances for unexpected
behavior... for as far as I can see aesthetics. (aesthetics
that I don't share, fwiw).