[mail-vet-discuss] General header field removal (was Re: Last Call: ...)
dhc at dcrocker.net
Tue Dec 2 13:15:49 PST 2008
I'd prefer SHOULD but think it probably more important to make only changes that
are essential, at this stage. This one ain't essential (even with group
consensus to make the change, IMO...)
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> Victor Duchovni wrote:
>> So while I would naively prefer a simpler design with no "authserv-id"
>> and all external AR headers stripped, this forces routine removal of
>> headers, which is perhaps not a good idea.
> Unless I'm mistaken, consensus among participants here and others I've
> consulted appears to be that the normative MAY should remain and not be
> upgraded to SHOULD, but text discussing the risks of such general
> removal of inbound A-R header fields should be added.
> I'm comfortable with the consensus. Is there strong objection to that
> course of action?
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
More information about the mail-vet-discuss