> Alt-N's case, I'd think it ought to be clear that if the option to use
> z= is turned on, it deviates from compliance with the DKIM spec.
> Arvel, I'm curious: how do you explain that option to the
I have not implemented this. I mentioned it only as a possible way to
deal with subject alteration.
However, if I were to implement it, I would definitely mention the issue
of losing the [list name] prefix. I would put warnings in both the user
manual _and_ in a popup box that appears anytime the option is enabled.
I would also mention that re-tasking the z= for this purpose was not
the intent of the authors.
At the risk of tossing out another lame idea:
One could also construct a new subject header of this form:
Subject: <signed data> Warning, unsigned content - (old unsigned data)
This is less safe but at least gives a warning to the user and would
have the [list name] construct present for filters.
Ok, I'm ready to get flamed. LOL.
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to