[ietf-dkim] Draft minutes...

[Eric Allman]

Huh?  You've got me completely confused.  DKIM should /never/ add 
Resent-* fields.  I don't see how that is stated or implied.  I can 
see how you might think that it has to include them in h= even if 
they didn't already exist, so I've added "if included" to the text.

Resent-* may seem "quaint" to you, but they are still in-spec and 
used (by me, if no one else).

eric



--On July 12, 2006 4:56:49 PM -0700 Michael Thomas <mike at mtcc.com> 
wrote:

> Eric Allman wrote:
>
>> Resent-* should only be added by MUAs when someone is
>> re-submitting a  message back into the MHS.  Essentially
>> Resent-From subsumes the role  of From when a message is
>> re-submitted (ditto for Resent-Sender and  Sender).  It's not
>> quite this simple, since an MUA replying to a  resent message
>> should still reply back to the original originator, not  the
>> resending originator, but that's the basic gist of it.
>
>
> The reason I'm pushing back on this is that it's a protocol
> affecting change as I don't
> think that I've seen many implementations that *always* add those
> fields (does
> Murray's? Mine doesn't by default). The change you're making here
> would cause
> a compliant verifier to reject those signatures. Is it really
> *that* important? Maybe
> it's me, but Resent-From and Resent-Sender seem pretty quaint and
> in their
> dotage.
>
>        Mike