--On 15 October 2010 11:53:51 -0400 Dave CROCKER <d...@dcrocker.net> wrote:
> > > 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. I assumed that the proposal applied only to headers rfc5322 says cannot be duplicated. This is almost the same as saying that non-compliant messages MUST not verify, but more explicit, and therefore more helpful to implementers of verification code. > That's a very powerful semantic change. Not particularly, if these messages are already not supposed to verify. > 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. -- Ian Eiloart IT Services, University of Sussex 01273-873148 x3148 For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/ _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
