> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Dave CROCKER
> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 9:11 AM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Revision to draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists posted
>
> My own primary concern, here, is that the document clearly mark the difference
> between what is currently withing the DKIM specification and what goes
> beyond it.
So maybe just this (note the trailing paragraph):
Section 5.5 of [DKIM] includes a list of header fields that a
signature SHOULD include in its header hash and discusses reasons for
doing so. MLMs that sign MUST adhere to those guidelines, extended
as follows: {DKIM 12}
o Any [AUTH-RESULTS] fields added by the MLM;
o Any [LIST-ID] or [LIST-URLS] fields added by the MLM;
o Any [MAIL] fields, especially Sender and Reply-To, added or
replaced by the MLM.
Note that [DKIM] does not ascribe any specific meaning to what is or is
not included in the hashes that make up the signature. This is an extension
to DKIM's semantics insofar as the MLM is taking responsibility for the
specific fields it added or altered.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
