On Sun, Apr 13, 2025 at 11:56 AM Richard Clayton <rich...@highwayman.com> wrote:
> >Bcc header field? Doesn’t that contradict the “blank” carbon copy? > I think "B" means "Blind". > I suggest you read RFC5322 #3.6.3, which has quite a lot of text > explaining the complexity of what a Bcc header field can look like. For > length, I will not include that here. > > You can try arguing there is no value in signing the field because > nothing ever displays it or acts upon its content ... I am not confident > about that. > I would argue that any value in signing the field is defeated by the fact that it is supposed to get removed before it proceeds to delivery. Some agents might remove it sooner than delivery. Removing a signed header field has a negative impact at verification time. -MSK
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
