Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > Recommend adding the following paragraph (excuse the XML markup): > > <t> There are tradeoffs in the decision of what constitutes > the "core" of the message, which for some fields is a > subjective concept. Including fields such as "Message-ID" > for example is useful if one considers a mechanism for > being able to distinguish separate instances of the same > message to be core content. Similarly, "In-Reply-To" > and "References" might be desirable to include if one > considers message threading to be a core part of the > message. </t>
hmmm, "if one considers...." Oy vey. Message-id is a "core" header in mail systems as part of the authenticity of the message and highly used as part of dupe checking algorithms. That is not subjective concept. It is part of robust mail system designs. Its very vexing to me to understand how this is being contested. What is subjective is the above text with an inference the Message-ID is of low utility and low deployment for message identification. The goal for DKIM is to increase verifiable authenticity and the Message-ID is one of those persistent header expectations. It is never expected to be changed or removed. Besides, where was the WG consensus for the removal in the first place? You can't just remove something and force everyone to waste time proving why it should be added. It was added in the first place since the original document for good reason and remain there all these years until this WGLC last minute. That's just not right. -- Hector Santos, CTO http://www.santronics.com http://santronics.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
