[mail-vet-discuss] Re: Auth-Results issues? #7 section 4.1

[Murray S. Kucherawy]

Getting back to this again...

Tony Hansen wrote:
> In section 4.1, it says:
> 
>    		Naturally then, users would not activate such a
>    feature unless they are certain the header will be added by the
>    receiving MTA that accepts the mail which is ultimately read by the
>    MUA, and instances of the header added by foreign MTAs will be
>    removed before delivery.
> 
> Where does it say that foreign A-Rs are to be removed? I don't see that
> anywhere in the spec.

I didn't want to mandate such a thing, again for reasons along the lines of 
speed of adoption.  Do you think that should be mandatory?

> Later in section 4.1, it says:
> 
>    An MTA adding a header MUST add the header at the top of the message
>    so that there is generally some indication upon delivery of where in
>    the chain of handling MTAs the sender authentcation was done.
> 
> This actually places the A-R in the same category as a trace header, as
> defined in [MAIL]. This should be mentioned.

If I get my way on ietf-dkim, there will be a way to specifically associate 
certain results with specific signatures.  In that case I don't care where the 
A-R header goes, and this doesn't need to be labeled as a trace header.