On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 07:58:42PM -0500, Tony Hansen allegedly wrote:
Since my question before was hijacked by a totally different thread, I'm
going to ask again under another thread:
We allow extra options to be specified in a DKIM-Signature header, but
do not allow extra options to be specified in a DKIM TXT record. (I
don't recall this being discussed before, but just may not remember it.)
Should we? If not, how would we do upwardly-compatible changes without
requiring multiple DNS entries for both an old and new entry?
If the spec doesn't say it, then it's an oversight. The intent has
always been to allow new tags in Selectors/policy and that existing
code should ignore unrecognized tags.
Mark.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://dkim.org/ietf-list-rules.html