On Monday, February 19, 2018 08:42:24 PM Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 3:49 AM, John Levine <jo...@taugh.com> wrote:
> > Seems fine, although I've long found 7601 one of the most mysterious RFCs
> > ever published.
> Why's that? (And why wasn't this mentioned when 7601 or any of its
> antecedents was in last call? No errata?)
> > The IANA registry says that there is a dkim header.i property defined
> > in RFC7601, but the only place it appears in 7601 is in examples in
> > Appendix B.
> 7601 says:
> DKIM results are reported using a ptype of "header". The property,
> however, represents one of the tags found in the DKIM-Signature
> header field rather than a distinct header field.
> So "header.d" means the d= tag, "header.i" means the i= tag, etc. Those
> are the only two identifiers DKIM evaluates, so they're the only ones that
> were ever registered.
> 7601bis loosens the language about what's appropriate to send downstream,
> from being only authenticated identifiers to also allowing other related
> stuff that downstream agents might want to use or log. That means things
> like "s" and "a" are now in play.
Any feedback on the patch I sent you to add them to 7601bis?
dmarc mailing list