… as long as the secret sauce header isn’t encoded in a x-something header. But then it is entirely up to you to determine which headers you sign, overriding the defaults, right?
From: John Levine <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, 10 June 2026 at 2:29 PM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: [Ietf-dkim] Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Proposed change: X-* header handling in signed header set It appears that Wei Chuang <[email protected]> said: >-=-=-=-=-=- > >What about keeping the DKIM2 exclusion of X- header fields, and >standardizing a new prefix for proprietary headers that can be optionally >protected? The current plan is to sign everything except X-* and a short list of trace headers. So if you add: Google-secret-sauce: 42swordfish that'll get signed. I don't see a problem here to be solved. R's, John _______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
