> We allow extra options to be specified in a DKIM-Signature header, but
> do not allow extra options to be specified in a DKIM TXT record. (I
> don't recall this being discussed before, but just may not remember
> it.) Should we?
Yes we should. I was under the impression that unknown options would
simply be ignored. That's the only way to make upwardly compatible
change easily right?
--
Arvel
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://dkim.org/ietf-list-rules.html
