The revised wording ignores the case where multiple existences of a
header field name may exist in either/both of the h= and z= values. It's
still ambiguous.
Tony Hansen
tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com
Eric Allman wrote:
Perhaps:
"A vertical-bar-separated list of select header field names and
copies of header field values that identify the header fields
present when the message was signed. It is not required to include
all header field names and values."
I've added essentially this wording. Sorry for the confusion; it was
definitely ambiguous.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html