Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> Common examples of fields with addresses and fields with >> textual content related to the body are: >> >> o From
-1 with the removal of the original text of: o From (REQUIRED in all signatures) The 5322.From header is a fundamental binding requirement in DKIM signatures. Removing the "(REQUIRED in all Signature)" increases incorrect reading of the DKIM specification that 5322.From is not required. This increase potentials for future interoperability issues when a FROM is not bound and it will fail validation. There is clearly no reasonable explanation to remove this strong emphasis and just continues to promote negative intent views. Please stop introducing changes that is clearly sensitive and known to create a WG conflict and the only way to solve that thorn is to ignore the posted concerns. This a serious WG protest problem with the on-going concerns of creeping in removals of all things related to the AUID and the required 5322.From bound association with the signature. Please don't remove this critical requirement text. > I'd actually like to add Authentication-Results because an agent > that wishes to claim that observed authentication meta-data should > become part of the message core certainly should sign such a field, > but that's not worth recycling at Proposed and basically RFC5451 > already says that anyway. IMO, you should as it will help with DKIM Mail Integration. If you think this current non-standard header is IETF RFC material fit issue, then is it possible to use a generalized text: o Any DKIM related verification results and trace fields -- Hector Santos, CTO http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html