On 3/30/25 6:54 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Sun, Mar 30, 2025 at 5:33 PM Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote:
Does this run on the assumption that DKIM isn't a trace header? I
keep asking and nobody will answer. Two different working groups,
two different bouts of silence.
As I recall, we intentionally made DKIM only SHOULD be treated as a
trace field. I think that was for debugging convenience for people
manually inspecting a signed message. DomainKey-Signature was a MUST,
as I recall, because its position mattered for verification, but the
introduction of the "h" tag made that less critical.
Unless somebody can actually can show this is an actual problem in the
field, I will continue to be unimpressed that this is some pressing
issue. Any new upgrade can make it a MUST if that's what is needed.
Again, not a reason to require this be a new protocol vs. an upgrade.
Mike
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
