On 08/Oct/10 07:00, John R. Levine wrote:
Having the signer put the extra junk in h= should make existing verifiers
do the right thing, although I doubt the bit of verification code that
checks for the non-existence of the N+1st header for N>0 is well tested in
DKIM implementations.
+1, and the revised example proposed by Julian can be enough.
The whole discussion on multiple "From"s then boils down on whether it
is worth to change the protocol so that, for example,
"h=from:subject:date:message-id:to" MUST be interpreted by the
verifier to mean
"h=from:from:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to", a
handy abbreviation for known fields.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html