--On July 13, 2006 2:44:56 AM +0000 Mark Delany
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
To my mind, the spec currently stands mid-way, it sort-of protects
obvious headers but cannot possibly protect all, so my druthers is
that we actually remove all compulsion as to which headers are
signed as it may well look truly quaint in five years time when
other important originator headers get created.
I have to admit that I disagree with the argument but do agree with
the conclusion. I don't think it's likely that after 29 years (since
the publication of RFC 733) that we are suddenly going to want new
originator headers in five years that will make the previous history
look quaint. It would take far more than five years to update the
MUAs. However, in the spirit of "mechanism, not policy" I think it's
a good idea to pull out the normative language (perhaps retain it in
yet another informative note).
eric
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
