[mail-vet-discuss] SHOULD the header be signed?

[Charles Lindsey]

On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 17:42:10 -0000, Murray S. Kucherawy <msk at sendmail.com>  
wrote:

> Charles Lindsey wrote:
>> I might not go as SHOULD, but certainly the practice should be  
>> encouraged in suitable cases. These include
>>
>> 1. where the mail is to be sent further using SMTP (whether within the  
>> final delivery boundary or not - note that such boundaries are not  
>> always clearly recignised, even within their supposed borders).

> Does this draft need to say "to protect this header, you should sign  
> it"?  That seems to be something generally true and not specific to this  
> proposal.

Yes, I think it needs to say something of the sort. But not necessarily as  
strong as a SHOULD (it is just a sensible practice that should be  
mentioned and encouraged),

>> But, as a corollarly, it should be stated that these headers SHOULD NOT  
>> be removed at boundaries in cases where they are covered by such a  
>> signature (I probably mean a signature that verifies correctly).

> The final paragraph of "Removing The Header Field" discusses that issue  
> already, though not in a normative sense.  Is that really necessary?

Yes, the wording of that paragraph seems to cover my point.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131                       
   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl at clerew.man.ac.uk      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5