mail-vet-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [mail-vet-discuss] General header field removal (was Re: Last Call: ...)

2008-12-02 16:17:36
I'd prefer SHOULD but think it probably more important to make only changes 
that 
are essential, at this stage.  This one ain't essential (even with group 
consensus to make the change, IMO...)

d/

Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Victor Duchovni wrote:
So while I would naively prefer a simpler design with no "authserv-id"
and all external AR headers stripped, this forces routine removal of
headers, which is perhaps not a good idea.

  

Unless I'm mistaken, consensus among participants here and others I've 
consulted appears to be that the normative MAY should remain and not be 
upgraded to SHOULD, but text discussing the risks of such general 
removal of inbound A-R header fields should be added.

I'm comfortable with the consensus.  Is there strong objection to that 
course of action?
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html 


-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html 

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>