> On Mar 26, 2018, at 1:15 PM, Jim Fenton <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Header field munging is an ugly business, and (as an individual) I am
> opposed to it, especially since this doesn't seem to be a very
> compelling usage. As document editor, I haven't heard WG consensus to
> include that in the REQUIRETLS draft, so I won't be adding that. Of
> course, some operators might munge the Subject header field anyway, as
> they do for other things.
Indeed I am not suggesting any standard for munging headers. This would
be a site-local issue, to allow users to set "Require-TLS: NO" when using
an MUA that does not (yet?) support the proposed mechanism.
--
Viktor.
_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
