"Dave CROCKER" <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net> wrote:
In particular, it makes the multiple From: issue entirely
irrelevant to DKIM.
Scott Kitterman wrote:
In a normative sense, perhaps, but in real world terms, it doesn't.
Since this does away with "It's not valid 5322, so it can't
be valid DKIM", it puts the question of how implementors should
deal with such things back on the table.
+1
I'd like to see us include a general helpful note to
implementors about covering the case where a duplicate header
field is added after signing. Maybe this is an added item
for security considerations?
+1. This is where I thought it would go.
--
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html