My preference would be Message-Id SHOULD be part of the top core listing and if wish to add text to explain use cases when/why it should|may not considered be hashing, that would be make more DKIM engineering sense to me.
It should be the exception and not the rule to not consider a Message-ID as part of the "core" group. So if anything, There are tradeoffs in the decision of what constitutes the "core" of the message, which for some fields is a subjective concept with use cases where modifications or removals are possible. For example, excluding fields such as "Message-ID" may apply under certain scenario where it is known this header may be altered, such as under a resigner creating a new message. Whatever. Hector Santos wrote: > Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> Recommend adding the following paragraph (excuse the XML markup): >> >> <t> There are tradeoffs in the decision of what constitutes >> the "core" of the message, which for some fields is a >> subjective concept. Including fields such as "Message-ID" >> for example is useful if one considers a mechanism for >> being able to distinguish separate instances of the same >> message to be core content. Similarly, "In-Reply-To" >> and "References" might be desirable to include if one >> considers message threading to be a core part of the >> message. </t> > > hmmm, "if one considers...." Oy vey. > > Message-id is a "core" header in mail systems as part of the > authenticity of the message and highly used as part of dupe checking > algorithms. That is not subjective concept. It is part of robust mail > system designs. Its very vexing to me to understand how this is being > contested. What is subjective is the above text with an inference the > Message-ID is of low utility and low deployment for message > identification. > > The goal for DKIM is to increase verifiable authenticity and the > Message-ID is one of those persistent header expectations. It is never > expected to be changed or removed. > > Besides, where was the WG consensus for the removal in the first > place? You can't just remove something and force everyone to waste > time proving why it should be added. It was added in the first place > since the original document for good reason and remain there all these > years until this WGLC last minute. > > That's just not right. > -- Hector Santos, CTO http://www.santronics.com http://santronics.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html