I think Murray's point is a fair one. This thread isn't really progressing in terms of what to in/exclude from 4871bis as far as I can see so let's leave it there.
Stephen. Doug Otis wrote: > On Jun 8, 2009, at 3:37 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > >>> The use of the DKIM l=, z= and x= features provide a means for >>> recipients to separately evaluate DKIM signatures without reliance >>> on intermediary assessors. In addition, the A-R header does not >>> capture the IP address when assessing path registration protocols, >>> which means that safe recipient reassessment might only be possible >>> in the case of DKIM or reverse DNS. >>> [...] >> Could we please not re-re-re-rehash these A-R issues on ietf-dkim? > > > This was in response Charles making the statement: > > "For such forensic investigations, removing useful information (aka > "dumbing down") is always a dumb thing." > > These headers represent an active and potentially hazardous component > used in email annotation. Unless the border MTA is willing to assert > the A-R headers not removed are safe, the A-R headers should be > removed. The point of "rehashing" information excluded from the A-R > header was to emphasize the point that these headers were not intended > to play a role in forensics. Otherwise, the source of a message would > have been important. > > -Doug > _______________________________________________ > NOTE WELL: This list operates according to > http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html > _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
