[mail-vet-discuss] Auth-Results issues? #2 headerspec

Tony Hansen tony at att.com
Wed Apr 19 15:12:42 PDT 2006

Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> Tony Hansen wrote:
>> 3) Make the headerspec property an optional value to be specified by the
>> registration specifics for a given authentication method. So whatever
>> document is used to define how A-R is used by dkim would also specify
>> what value should go here. Not all authentication methods will need a
>> property.
> It may be necessary to provide other data as well.  I'm thinking maybe
> stuff like this might also be meaningful to an MUA:
>     version    (version of the method being evaluated)
>     sig-id    (signature ID; see my other chatter on ietf-dkim)
> So perhaps the ABNF should have method=result, ptype-stuff=value (which
> you have now), and also allowances for other auxilliary data.

I agree completely.


More information about the mail-vet-discuss mailing list