[ietf-dkim] Issue: which headers should we REQUIRE to be signed?

[Bill.Oxley at cox.com]

Good? Probably not, useful, not really but that is a policy thingee.
Thanks,

Bill Oxley 
Messaging Engineer 
Cox Communications, Inc. 
Alpharetta GA 
404-847-6397 
bill.oxley at cox.com 


-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Tony Hansen
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 6:32 PM
To: ietf-dkim at mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Issue: which headers should we REQUIRE to be
signed?

With h=;, you don't need to sign the header. And with l=0, you don't
need the body either. But I'm not convinced that either one would be a
good thing to do.

	Tony Hansen
	tony at att.com

Bill.Oxley at cox.com wrote:
> With no headers at all being signed, a signature should still be
either
> valid or invalid and therefore still useful. Don't NEED headers for
> base.

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html