[Mailman-Developers] dkim-signature headers

[Mark Sapiro]

Michael Thomas wrote:

>Mark Sapiro wrote:
>>
>> If we were to take a different approach with a signature containing l=,
>> either the l= includes all the text/plain and at least part of the
>> text/html, in which we can't add the footer to the text/plain
>> alternative without breaking the signature, or the l= includes none of
>> the text/html part in which case the signature is not very good at
>> verifying the validity of the text/html part. This further assumes we
>> even know how to add a footer to a text/html part.
>>
>>   
>Are you still speaking of multipart/alernative?


Yes, I am.


>Right now what we do 
>for, say,
>text/html is not sign the trailing </body></html> and final --. This 
>allows lists
>to insert their trailers as they normally do in the mime/html body.


This assumes that something appended to an html body will render in a
nice way. Maybe it will in most cases, but there's no guarantee.


>Similar for
>text/plain too. For us at least (and it may be that we're just have a 
>lot of html hating
>geeks), this seems to do the trick pretty well. I see some breakage from 
>multipart/
>alternative, but not _that_ much.


I'm not sure how typical your Mailman environment is. For regular,
non-geek lists, I think that most posts from Y! will be
multipart/alternative, and I think that will be a problem if the MLM
touches the message body in almost any way.

-- 
Mark Sapiro <msapiro at value.net>       The highway is for gamblers,
San Francisco Bay Area, California    better use your sense - B. Dylan