------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
http://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1310
--- Comment #6 from Phil Pennock <pdp@???> 2012-10-16 23:19:38 ---
Er, yes: you might note that I'm arguing in favour of always signing all such
headers. I don't see the benefit of headers which you might be willing to sign
but not be willing to sign to say "should be absent".
Note: RFC 4871 was obsoleted by RFC 6376.
I had not noticed that the Resent-* and List-* headers are all recommended to
be signed. Given that, we can't sign-the-absence-by-default and my previous
stance was wrong.
Todd, I like that AlwaysSignHeaders / OmitHeaders / SignHeaders distinction.
Is there any reason that we shouldn't just steal those names (after converting
CamelCase to underscore_words) for the Exim options? The closer we stay to the
other main project using DKIM, the less administrator confusion caused by
renaming. Let's avoid falling for NIH trap.
I take it that in OpenDKIM, counting the number of instances of a header (eg,
to cap the number of instances which may be present) is done by counting the
max number in either of AlwaysSignHeaders and SignHeaders instead of summing
them or anything weird?
Which takes precedence, AlwaysSignHeaders or OmitHeaders?
--
Configure bugmail:
http://bugs.exim.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
