Eric Allman wrote:
Huh? You've got me completely confused. DKIM should /never/ add
Resent-* fields. I don't see how that is stated or implied. I can
see how you might think that it has to include them in h= even if they
didn't already exist, so I've added "if included" to the text.
I meant added to h=. You're forcing a DKIM protocol change to mandate that
they be present. And yes, your previous wording wasn't at all clear
about whether
they only MUST be added if they were present. And I'm not sure that "if
included"
would be right -- if they're that important, you'd want to guard against
insertions
later in malicious MTA's, right?
Resent-* may seem "quaint" to you, but they are still in-spec and used
(by me, if no one else).
The issue is whether we really need to break a bunch of DKIM
implementations over
this. It sure doesn't seem to raise to that level of urgency to me.
Mike
eric
--On July 12, 2006 4:56:49 PM -0700 Michael Thomas <mike(_at_)mtcc(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Eric Allman wrote:
Resent-* should only be added by MUAs when someone is
re-submitting a message back into the MHS. Essentially
Resent-From subsumes the role of From when a message is
re-submitted (ditto for Resent-Sender and Sender). It's not
quite this simple, since an MUA replying to a resent message
should still reply back to the original originator, not the
resending originator, but that's the basic gist of it.
The reason I'm pushing back on this is that it's a protocol
affecting change as I don't
think that I've seen many implementations that *always* add those
fields (does
Murray's? Mine doesn't by default). The change you're making here
would cause
a compliant verifier to reject those signatures. Is it really
*that* important? Maybe
it's me, but Resent-From and Resent-Sender seem pretty quaint and
in their
dotage.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html