On 3/31/25 8:07 AM, Taavi Eomäe wrote:
On 31/03/2025 17:53, Michael Thomas wrote:
It was always a bad idea to strip signatures, and continues to be.
The text of DKIM couldn't be more clear that a broken signature is
equivalent to no signature and broken signatures have always had
forensic value.
Unfortunately in reality broken signatures are sometimes treated worse
than no signature at all.
Though I don't want to start a discussion on if it should be done or
what the results are or what the results should be. I was just stating
that it is being done and the decision between new headers or a new
version will (or will not) affect how some implementations behave, for
better or for worse.
If they ignore the plain and clear text of STD 76, what makes you think
they will honor it in a new protocol?
Mike
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
