Peter J. Holzer wrote: [3.9] >> Note "the message header section [...] MUST be left unchanged". >> We're in Last Call about this, this will be the "law", if you >> think it is flawed please say so - but better not only on the >> DKIM list.
> Thanks for pointing this out. I do think this is flawed. Not > only prevents this inserting or altering a "Sender" field, I'd be tempted to accept this as collateral damage, but this... > it also contradicts RFC 2369 (a proposed standard), which > recommends inserting various "List-*" fields into the header. ...is of course serious. The Last Call was premature, we need to go through the complete draft, one section per week, or a similar approach. Now I'm very curious what John thinks of touching MUSTard in 2821bis, I recall his comment about a MUST in my "4409 to STD" proposal (also related to 4406 oddities). Frank
