Justin Mason wrote:
Daryl C. W. O'Shea writes:
Loren Wilton wrote:
Total guess: that comment was left over from domainkeys, from before the SA
headers were moved up to the top.
Without the comment that'd be clear and is what I'm 99.999% certain it's
there for. I don't see how a copy of headers being passed to another
module would affect anything.
Maybe I'm really just curious as to WTF jm was thinking 13 months ago. :)
it was indeed from before the headers were moved to the top. I'd say we
can safely remove it from DK now, since our mass-check corpora have moved
on since then. ;)
Daryl -- it is definitely irrelevant for DKIM, if DKIM does indeed always
require the signed headers to be listed. (I wasn't sure if that was a
requirement or not in DKIM, and I can't check right now.) That
entire method may be not required in DKIM in that case!
Yeah, DKIM requires a header listing, whereas in DK it was optional. So
away it goes - yay!
Daryl
