This is not related to ADSP. At 14:05 18-06-2008, Hector Santos wrote: >But more importantly, consider that DKIM binding *instructs* you what >headers must be present. Therefore, this is going to be one of the top >strong "sanity checks" to optimized DKIM processors. Why bother to >waste time recalculation the SHA265 hash when it may not even have all >its ingredients. If DKIM h= has from:to:subject:date: and one or more >of these fields are missing - BINGO - instance REJECT without the need >to do hashing - a sanity check and heavily confirmed with a new higher >level of expectations triggered but the presence of this >"DKIM-Signature:" in the message.
Sanity checks are different from which headers should be signed. The checks may be necessary to prevent MUA quirks. The h= tag defines which headers are signed. It may include headers that are not present. There is an informative explanation in the RFC about that. Regards, -sm _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
