[mail-vet-discuss] Draft as of 9/4/2007

[Murray S. Kucherawy]

John L wrote:
>> Surely you're not advocating a MUST NOT strip, or even a SHOULD NOT
>> strip. The third parties can sign after all and then you'd just trust 
>> them directly.
>
> Why, yes indeed, I'm advocating SHOULD NOT strip.  Surely you haven't 
> forgotten that this is supposed to work with SPF and Sender-ID, where 
> forwarders can't sign without munging the message.  Even if the 
> forwarders do sign, that doesn't tell us anything about the status of 
> the message when it arrived at the forwarder which is useful for spam 
> forensics.

Version 08 of the draft is now available via www.ietf.org.  It's still a 
MUST to delete this header if it claims to come within your domain, but 
other deletions are unspecified and thus up to the receiver's 
implementation/configuration.