Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jan 2008, Jose-Marcio Martins da Cruz wrote: >> * the couple (hostname,msgid) is, IMHO, an easy way to share a not fixed >> secret. I don't agree with SM, as this IS couple is a unique ID. >> >> If the message ID is inside a comment, it's good enough for me, as it >> allows me to ensure better checks, and allows current behaviour of >> removing old AR. But OK, do what you think it's the best way... > > I'm fine with either the comment method or prepending the job ID (plus a > delimiter like "/") to the authserv-id so that the existing header removal > code will still work.
Well. Let's agree with some points... * Shall there be a boolean configuration option to tell dkim-milter to add the jobid (if available) to the authserv-id field. I think yes. If you agree, what shall be the name of this option ? * I shall add code to add the jobid value to authserv-id field of the header. This seems easy. When removing AR headers, I shall compare them. It seems to me that it's enough to, allways, split the authserv-id into two fields (before and after the '/' charactere), and use the second part (if the first one isn't empty) with current comparisons (code around line 3131 or dkim-filter.c). Or use the first one, if there isn't a '/' character in the authserv-id. This logic works if the character '/' can't be used in this field for any purpose other than this. Can I assume that ? -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Marcio MARTINS DA CRUZ http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr Ecole des Mines de Paris 60, bd Saint Michel 75272 - PARIS CEDEX 06 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ dkim-milter-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dkim-milter-discuss
