Daryl C. W. O'Shea writes: > Loren Wilton wrote: > > Total guess: that comment was left over from domainkeys, from before the SA > > headers were moved up to the top. > > Without the comment that'd be clear and is what I'm 99.999% certain it's > there for. I don't see how a copy of headers being passed to another > module would affect anything. > > Maybe I'm really just curious as to WTF jm was thinking 13 months ago. :)
it was indeed from before the headers were moved to the top. I'd say we can safely remove it from DK now, since our mass-check corpora have moved on since then. ;) Daryl -- it is definitely irrelevant for DKIM, if DKIM does indeed always require the signed headers to be listed. (I wasn't sure if that was a requirement or not in DKIM, and I can't check right now.) That entire method may be not required in DKIM in that case! --j.
