Arvel Hathcock wrote:
>> The verifier then simply replaces the subject text with the value
>> from z= that was signed. That's one way of solving the mailing list
>> subject munging problem.
>
> This goes far beyond the specification. While it might be useful, it
> is really a heuristic and it is not part of the draft that is seeking
> standardization.
This was offered simply to counter the idea that it's impossible to
validate mail which has undergone a subject munge.
And I think that this highlights the need to be extremely careful about what is
being claim and what is being discussed.
This being a standards group, our task is to discuss global specifications that
reach community consensus. That means they represent a public, common
understanding of what can and cannot be done.
Anyone is free to go beyond that understanding, but when they do, they are
outside of this forum. Unless a behavior is explicitly specified and agreed to,
the other participants in the mechanism -- e.g., use of DKIM -- cannot know it
will happen. If they cannot know it will happen, they cannot plan for it.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
