Subject: RE: [ietf-dkim] OT o=. (was: New Issue: 4.2 needs new Attack Item:Inconsistent Signature vs Policy Attacks)

From: "Jim Fenton \(fenton\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 08:52:10 -0800

Oops.  You're right.  I was probably confusing this with WEAK.

-Jim

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Frank Ellermann [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent:	Tue Jan 31 08:46:52 2006
To:	[email-masked]
Subject:	[ietf-dkim] OT o=. (was: New Issue: 4.2 needs new Attack Item:Inconsistent Signature vs Policy Attacks)

Jim Fenton wrote:

>> Example loopholes:

>> 1) A message is signed, but the SSP indicated a "o=." (No
>>    mail expected from domain).

> There has been a lot of discussion of "o=." but it's not
> actually in the current version of the SSP draft.

Did you confuse this with WEAK ?  Or do you have a fresher copy
of the draft ?  My copy draft-allman-dkim-ssp-01 still has o=.
on <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-allman-dkim-ssp-01#page-9>

                               Bye, Frank

_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org