At 16:40 24-03-2009, J.D. Falk wrote: >Pointing to an RFC rarely mitigates real-world concerns.
I commented on why the problem occurs. I could argue that header field should not be present in a RFC 5322 message at the signing stage. RFC 4871 lists some header fields that should be signed. It also contains a list of header fields that should not be signed. The Return-Path header field is listed in there. If you believe this is a real-world concern that should be addressed, you could specify that the Return-Path header field must not be included in the signature. Regards, -sm _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
