I've added all this fun stuff to the issue tracker.
Mark Delany wrote: > On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 07:58:42PM -0500, Tony Hansen allegedly wrote: > >> Since my question before was hijacked by a totally different thread, I'm >> going to ask again under another thread: >> >> 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? If not, how would we do upwardly-compatible changes without >> requiring multiple DNS entries for both an old and new entry? >> > > If the spec doesn't say it, then it's an oversight. The intent has > always been to allow new tags in Selectors/policy and that existing > code should ignore unrecognized tags. > > > Mark. > _______________________________________________ > NOTE WELL: This list operates according to > http://dkim.org/ietf-list-rules.html > > _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://dkim.org/ietf-list-rules.html
