On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 4:08 AM, Douglas Otis <doug.mtview@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In its current form, DKIM simply attaches a domain name in an unseen message fragment, not a message. The ease in which the only assured visible fragment of the message signed by the domain being forged makes it impossible for appropriate handling to be applied or likely harm prevented.
There are existence proofs that contradict this claim. They have been brought to your attention in the past.
It appears you're continuing to assign semantics to DKIM signatures that simply aren't there. I don't know what else can be done to clarify this.
Procedurally speaking, what path do you anticipate your draft following?
Procedurally speaking, what path do you anticipate your draft following?
-MSK