------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1310 --- Comment #6 from Phil Pennock <[email protected]> 2012-10-16 23:19:38 --- Er, yes: you might note that I'm arguing in favour of always signing all such headers. I don't see the benefit of headers which you might be willing to sign but not be willing to sign to say "should be absent". Note: RFC 4871 was obsoleted by RFC 6376. I had not noticed that the Resent-* and List-* headers are all recommended to be signed. Given that, we can't sign-the-absence-by-default and my previous stance was wrong. Todd, I like that AlwaysSignHeaders / OmitHeaders / SignHeaders distinction. Is there any reason that we shouldn't just steal those names (after converting CamelCase to underscore_words) for the Exim options? The closer we stay to the other main project using DKIM, the less administrator confusion caused by renaming. Let's avoid falling for NIH trap. I take it that in OpenDKIM, counting the number of instances of a header (eg, to cap the number of instances which may be present) is done by counting the max number in either of AlwaysSignHeaders and SignHeaders instead of summing them or anything weird? Which takes precedence, AlwaysSignHeaders or OmitHeaders? -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.exim.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email -- ## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
