On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 11:53 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull <step...@xemacs.org> wrote:
> > How about a new tag, "shf=" (special header fields). Ignored by legacy > > verifiers, as required; otherwise, contains a colon-separated list of > > fields that get special handling by verifiers. "Special handling" > depends > > on the header field and would need to be documented in each case. For > > DKIM-Delegate, for example, it is always canonicalized in a special way > > that would cause the signature never to validate for a legacy > > verifier. > > This seems to have it backwards though, because it's the presence of > the DKIM-Delegate field that means one or more of the DKIM-Signature > fields require special handling. > > True, but I think that small bit of weirdness is fine in the face of the token signature that would be misinterpreted and possibly abused by legacy DKIM installations that don't know about new tags or header fields. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
