Re: why bodyhash if just an authentication mechanism

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Murray S. Kucherawy <msk_at_blackops.org>
Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2011 08:18:21 -0800 (PST)

On Sat, 17 Dec 2011, Ram wrote:
> So does a valid DKIM signature also mean that the content is not
> tampered with ?

Yes.

Note that firm-dkim is not supported here, only libopendkim is.

I hope the links I sent were helpful.

-MSK
Received on Sat Dec 17 2011 - 16:18:35 PST

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: SM: "Re: why bodyhash if just an authentication mechanism"
Previous message: Ram: "why bodyhash if just an authentication mechanism"
In reply to: Ram: "why bodyhash if just an authentication mechanism"
Next in thread: SM: "Re: why bodyhash if just an authentication mechanism"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sat Dec 17 2011 - 21:50:03 PST