ARC-Discuss to BCC, moving the conversation to DMARC-WG On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 5:19 AM, Raymond van Venetie via arc-discuss < [email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > > The ARC-Seal header does not include the canonicalization tag 'c' in the > current specification. The ARC-Message-Signature includes the tag, but > discards its value and uses relaxed/relaxed -- right? > Shouldn't ARC-Seal also include the tag and simply ignore the value? Would > be handy to have this tag in case a new (better) canonicalization algorithm > is released. > As per some earlier conversations, the latest draft (draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-00) adds back in the "c=" tag for AMS (to match DKIM usage), but since the ARC-Seal is only signing across headers fields, it does not use or support any usage other than relaxed/relaxed. --Kurt
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
