RE: why bodyhash if just an authentication mechanism

From: SM <>
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 23:02:39 -0800

Hi Murray,
At 20:11 17-12-2011, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>The unfortunate thing is that this isn't a clear claim in either
>direction. RFC6376 is trying to make two points:


>So I guess it comes down to what you mean by "protected". The
>signature won't validate if the message was altered after it left
>the signer, so you know that a valid signature means it's unchanged
>since the signer last handled it. That's really all it tells you.

I guess that the easy answer would be that DKIM does not offer the
type of protection that PGP or S/MIME offers.

Received on Sun Dec 18 2011 - 07:06:43 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Mon Oct 29 2012 - 23:20:22 PST