Hector Santos wrote:
Any input regarding this?
Okay, I can offer some rants and flames about the z= crap ;-)
Officially we're not yet at "base" details, there are still
several open "threats" tickets.
OPTIONAL,
I'd go for SHOULD NOT and "deprecated" if possible, or maybe
a conditional MAY only for testing.
h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version;
z=From:aaaaaaaa|Subject:bbbbbbbb|To:ccccccccccccc;
Based on this, what are the header values to be verified.
The real header fields enumerated in h=.
If Z is for "forsensic" only, then why is TO: listed when
in fact, it is now part of h=?
You could still compare it with the real To header field, to
analyze weird mail modifications.
The z= appears to be a bad idea, like SPF's exp= or "X-Face:"
header fields. On the wrong side of the border to net abuse.
Maybe we could get away with reserving z= as "deprecated and
MUST be ignored" ?
Bye, Frank
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html