ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...

2006-07-13 16:44:58
In <44B5BB0B(_dot_)5030007(_at_)att(_dot_)com> Tony Hansen 
<tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com> writes:

Resent-From: and Resent-Sender: would be signed only if present in the
header. It's perfectly legit for a forwarding system to add them (and
expected according to the specs), and if that forwarding server then
signs the message, those headers MUST be treated in the same category as
From: and Sender:.

I realize that Eric has proposed dropping these headers, but...

RFC2822 directly talks about adding Resent-* headers and forwarding:

   Note: Reintroducing a message into the transport system and using
   resent fields is a different operation from "forwarding".
   "Forwarding" has two meanings: One sense of forwarding is that a mail
   reading program can be told by a user to forward a copy of a message
   to another person, making the forwarded message the body of the new
   message.  A forwarded message in this sense does not appear to have
   come from the original sender, but is an entirely new message from
   the forwarder of the message.  On the other hand, forwarding is also
   used to mean when a mail transport program gets a message and
   forwards it on to a different destination for final delivery.  Resent
   header fields are not intended for use with either type of
   forwarding.

Please note the last sentence:  the Resent-* headers are not intended
for use with forwarding.

This isn't a SHOULD NOT or a MUST NOT, but don't see how "the specs"
expect Resent-* headers to be added during forwarding. 



-wayne
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html