On Mon, 06 Apr 2015 10:06:44 PDT, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 8:25 AM, Michael Jack Assels > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > In both documents, there's a conspicuously missing item that would make > > list subscribers -- and owners -- a lot happier: A mechanism for changing > > the RFC5322.Subject header. [...] > > It's conspicuously missing mainly because of the thread from last week that > talks about why we avoided dealing with Subject: tagging during the > original development of DKIM. Sorry. It wasn't my intention to raise a question that had already been settled. I did read last week's thread. However, since your drafts appear to have done so much to address other issues that bother mailing list people, I thought it would be useful to handle subject tags in essentially the same way, the only significant difference being that they appear in headers rather than in the message body. > However, if consensus is that this general approach is viable, then yes, > it would be possible to have a second set of additional reversible > mutations such as this. The consensus is deafening. :-) MJA _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
