[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Naming of optional message header fields

2005-08-25 07:50:17

During my private engineering trials, I am using an X-  prefix for the 
headers I

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

I conclude that it would be acceptable for me to use header names of the form:

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;

You should ask this to the  ietf-822(_at_)imc(_dot_)org mailing list
for what is said before about it...