On Jun 8, 2009, at 3:37 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> The use of the DKIM l=, z= and x= features provide a means for >> recipients to separately evaluate DKIM signatures without reliance >> on intermediary assessors. In addition, the A-R header does not >> capture the IP address when assessing path registration protocols, >> which means that safe recipient reassessment might only be possible >> in the case of DKIM or reverse DNS. >> [...] > > Could we please not re-re-re-rehash these A-R issues on ietf-dkim?
This was in response Charles making the statement: "For such forensic investigations, removing useful information (aka "dumbing down") is always a dumb thing." These headers represent an active and potentially hazardous component used in email annotation. Unless the border MTA is willing to assert the A-R headers not removed are safe, the A-R headers should be removed. The point of "rehashing" information excluded from the A-R header was to emphasize the point that these headers were not intended to play a role in forensics. Otherwise, the source of a message would have been important. -Doug _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
