On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 2:54 PM, Jeremy Harris <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 24/04/18 22:45, Kurt Andersen (b) wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 1:10 PM, Jeremy Harris <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On 24/04/18 04:02, [email protected] wrote: > >>> https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dmarc-arc-protocol-14 > >> > >> Section 3.3: > >> For AMS generation, what is the intention regarding oversigning? > >> > > > > Can you clarify what you mean by "oversigning"? > > In DKIM you can, in the signature, list a header more times than > are actually present in the message. If you do, the addition of > another header of that name will break the signature; if you do > not it will not, and could obscure the original (depending on > the receiving MUA choice). > > Consider that being done to the Subject: header. I think that you could use the same set of header fields to be oversigned by AMS as you use for DKIM. --Kurt
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
