Well, now we're back to my question to Dave, what's the advantage of
leaving that as folklore rather than putting it in the spec other than the
warm theological feeling of somewhat preserving layer distinctions, except
for all the places we already didn't?
Why does it have to be normative?
I'd be perfectly happy with Jim's language which as I recall says
something like signers SHOULD decline to sign messages with redundant
headers and verifiers SHOULD decline to verify messages with unsigned
redundant headers.
This is an attack on DKIM, not on MUAs, so it's reasonable for DKIM to at
least take a crack at dealing with it.
Regards,
John Levine, johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet
for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html