DomainKeys will list the header fields that are signed. Adding a field (such as Subject: if it did not already exist) will not break the signature. It will just be considered an +ACI-unverified+ACI- header field and have no impact on the message.
This is the same process as adding +ACI-Received:+ACI- headers without breaking DomainKeys. - Jason J Ellingson ----- Original Message ----- From: +ADw-bugzilla-daemon+AEA-bugzilla.spamassassin.org+AD4- Subject: +AFs-Bug 3605+AF0- rewrite+AF8-header will not rewrite a missing header Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 12:07:23 -05:00 http://bugzilla.spamassassin.org/show+AF8-bug.cgi?id+AD0-3605 ------- Additional Comments From felicity+AEA-kluge.net 2004-10-26 10:07 ------- Subject: Re: rewrite+AF8-header will not rewrite a missing header On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 09:14:14AM -0700, bugzilla-daemon+AEA-bugzilla.spamassassin.org wrote: +AD4- Theo - the argument that the user should get a better MUA does not hold water - If you read the discussion comments, you'll notice that I never said they should change MUAs. What I said (comment +ACM-4) was that we shouldn't add previously non-existing message headers just because the end user's MUA can only filter on +ACI-Subject+ACI-. As far as SA is concerned, I'm somewhere between: a) we should not go adding standard headers (such as Subject) if they don't already exist. Can we even do this with things like DomainKeys? and b) we should rewrite all of the headers -- add the Subject if necessary, fix non-RFC compliant Content-Type headers, etc, etc. basically make the output from SA less likely to cause issues +ACI-downstream+ACI-. ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.
