On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 05:55:38 +0100, John R. Levine <johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Assuming this is some other protocol layers problem; to ensure
consistency
between any possible display and DKIM validation, ...
... is, for about the hundredth time, not DKIM's job.
Please chant "we have no idea how MUAs will display mail" over and over
until you believe it. This includes valid 5322 mail.
Precisely so. Which is why, this being a secuity protocol, we have to
presume that MUAs will do whatever will make life most difficult from a
DKIM POV, and design a protocol which works in spite of that. This we have
signally failed to do.
In the present situation, we need to presume that MUAs will display the
first instance only of any duplicated header (which is a pretty safe
presumption given that the most communly used MUA does just that).
The AD has been made aware of this problem, and has concluded that the
present 3.8 will suffice (though he has caused a missing reference to the
proper oart of section 8 to be added). Whilst I disagree with his
conclusion, I have decided not to take the matter any further (and Doug
and Rolf are aware of my decision).
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131
Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html