-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In message <78e99534-7b33-4e26-91c6-206035a91...@mtcc.com>, Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> writes
>I'm sorry can you give some examples of the "exotic changes to existing >fields"? I'm drawing a blank on why you'd need to change existing fields >at all vs introducing new tags, and especially since introducing new >mail headers is also an option. the notion of giving the sender the task of deciding on which headers to sign and then adding headers in twice to avoid non-RFC compliant messages being erroneously accepted is exotic ... saying that this is no longer required (as we do in DKIM2) will remove the exotic-ness but if we have to support the old scheme in parallel then there is no gain possible -- and if you handle emails at the billion scale you care about even small efficiency gains the notion of catering for reordering of headers when almost no system does (and if it does it could arrange to undo that) is exotic. DKIM2 will remove that (you won't find that in what we've written so far because Murray has discouraged technical discussion) the notion that simple is useful for headers is exotic ... the notion that allowing a choice of relaxed or simple for bodies means that people have to engineer for both -- that's exotic as you have already noted l= seemed like a good idea at the time, but is now associated with serious security concerns ... - -- richard Richard Clayton Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 iQA/AwUBZ5V7FGHfC/FfW545EQK3dQCgkFiw+59Lz9azUoYjQFi7ic3owr8AoIlV C59UrH4yJzN5dlunSlCx/SnR =gxaq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
