On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 05:42:53PM -0700, Michael Thomas allegedly wrote: > Eric Allman wrote: > > >The draft has /always/ said that these header fields are to be > >signed. From -03: > > > > any header field that describes the role of the signer (for > > example, the Sender or Resent-From header field if the > > signature is on behalf of the corresponding address and that > > address is different from the From address) MUST also be > > included. > > > >All I've done is re-word it. > > We clearly have a disconnect here. When I read the previous text, I see that > it is the *signers* resposibility to figure that role based stuff and if > it can, it MUST add those headers to h=. If it can't figure out that role, > then > it's not
This is an interesting topic and dwells on the desire to protect UAs from bad guys adding originating headers that could aid in a spoof. It was part of my thinking wrt h=* discussion. The problem of course is that no one knows what are, or will be, originating headers either because we have no clue about the destination UA or we have no clue about future headers. My current thinking, FWIW, is that a diligent UA/MDA will likely remove *all* headers that are not signed, excepting trace headers so the need to ensure protection of any header becomes moot. That includes, From: et al. To my mind, the spec currently stands mid-way, it sort-of protects obvious headers but cannot possibly protect all, so my druthers is that we actually remove all compulsion as to which headers are signed as it may well look truly quaint in five years time when other important originator headers get created. Mark. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
