It appears that Mike Hillyer <[email protected]> said: >In the interest of the rule of unforseen consequences, we're trying to avoid >oversigning any headers that would break further downstream processing. Does >anyone >know of any headers that *should* be DKIM signed, but *should not* be >oversigned?
Offhand, I can't think of any. DKIM signatures are only defined for RFC5322 messages, and anything with two From: or Subject: or Date: headers isn't an RFC5322 message. A DKIM validator really shouldn't accept an invalid message, and a spam filter should give a very high score to duplicate headers, but I realize theory and practice diverge here. R's, John _______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim
