I am designing a message verification system, broadly similar in concept to
Domain Keys, in that sending equipment adds headers to the RFC2822 message, and
automated recipient systems extract, parse and interpret these headers.
The scheme is intended be offered for standardisation via RFCs, and the main
code will be made available under Open Source conditions.
During my private engineering trials, I am using an X- prefix for the headers I
add.
It would make engineering sense to use production header names (without an X-
prefix) as soon as I release code to other people for multi-party trials.
I note that:
1) RFC 2822 Sect. 3.6.8 states simply that optional fields MUST NOT have have
the same names as those defined elsewhere in that RFC.
2) Domain Keys are using headers of the form "DomainKey-function" (example
below)
I conclude that it would be acceptable for me to use header names of the form:
"SchemeName-function".
Any disagreements?
Chris Haynes
-------------------------
Sample Domain Keys header from a recent message (specifics hidden):
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=***; d=***; c=nofws; q=dns;
h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:
references:x-mailer;
b=KkVbW***