On Fri, Nov 08 2013, Greg Troxel wrote: > DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; > d=gmail.com; s=20120113; > > h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to > :cc:content-type; > > Your message (direct to me) had a valid DKIM signature. It may be that > DKIM signers should not include the envelope sender. > > I tried to take an on-list message and munge the subject back to get > DKIM to pass but failed. > > The standard seems clear, so people can adjust their scores accordingly. > > http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6377 > > (Regardless of DKIM, I am opposed to subject munging. It takes up space > and provides no value for people with adequate mail setups.)
I agree, and it looks like I was totally wrong about the envelope's being included. It's not: only the headers specifically listed in the "h=" section are. Though I'm not sure why munging the subject back didn't make it validate correctly. -- Sean Richard Lynch <se...@literati.org> http://www.literati.org/~seanl/ _______________________________________________ tahoe-dev mailing list tahoe-dev@tahoe-lafs.org https://tahoe-lafs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev