On 10/15/2010 11:40 AM, Mark Delany wrote: > Well, if you want to introduce semantic changes why not just change > the meaning of h=from:to: to be semantically identical to > h=from:from:to:to:
This would mean that it is /never/ ok to add a listed header field after signing. Adding would /always/ break the signature. That's a very powerful semantic change. I've no idea that it's completely safe. It seems like it ought to be, but I worry about corner cases. d/ ps. I would expect such a semantic change to require re-cycling the spec at Proposed. -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
