On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 12:45 PM, Kurt Andersen (b) <kb...@drkurt.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 7:38 PM, John R. Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote: > >> I don't see the point of the header.ds field. We already have header.d, >> so why not just add header.s? >> > > Yes, quite so. Please see my note from earlier this morning. header.s is > already defined for 7601, we just need to indicate that it needs to be > added into the A-R and AAR rather than leaving it to chance. > header.s is NOT defined: https://www.iana.org/assignments/email-auth/email- auth.xhtml That's why I explicitly mentioned in the earlier thread about IANA registrations (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/72GKJ1mMd6Pc5_ DWYGgnLE-Uzxw) that we'd need to add it after 7602bis. To John's point, this is why I've been pushing hard for 7601bis, adding header.s to DKIM is far cleaner than trying to do header.ds in arc directly. This is why I asked question #2 in this thread: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dmarc/xUUbT15vqoBmH7RraJ_pesrd9z0 Seth
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
