Getting back to this again...
Tony Hansen wrote:
In section 4.1, it says:
Naturally then, users would not activate such a
feature unless they are certain the header will be added by the
receiving MTA that accepts the mail which is ultimately read by the
MUA, and instances of the header added by foreign MTAs will be
removed before delivery.
Where does it say that foreign A-Rs are to be removed? I don't see that
anywhere in the spec.
I didn't want to mandate such a thing, again for reasons along the lines of
speed of adoption. Do you think that should be mandatory?
Later in section 4.1, it says:
An MTA adding a header MUST add the header at the top of the message
so that there is generally some indication upon delivery of where in
the chain of handling MTAs the sender authentcation was done.
This actually places the A-R in the same category as a trace header, as
defined in [MAIL]. This should be mentioned.
If I get my way on ietf-dkim, there will be a way to specifically associate
certain results with specific signatures. In that case I don't care where the
A-R header goes, and this doesn't need to be labeled as a trace header.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html