>> With this, there is no need to rely on enforcement mechanisms >> outside DKIM, such as the correct implementation of RFC 5322. > > I would suggest constraining that to include only those fields that are > 0-or-1 in RFC5322 Section 3.6. For example, doing this with Received: > is begging for signature invalidation on otherwise unaltered messages.
Signed Received headers at all is asking for trouble, but I take your point. So here's a 0th cut at a list of headers where we should recommend N+1 entries in the h= rfc 5322 From Sender Reply-To (maybe not, since often smashed by mailing lists) To Cc (not Bcc even though it's 0/1) Message-ID Subject Date rfc 4021 MIME-Version Content-Type R's, John _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
