|
Re: z= question with X headers: msg#00536ietf.dkim
I also read it the same way Arvel did. Also, if it isn't interpreted that way, you get ambiguities when multiple instances of a particular header are listed and only some of the values are presented in z=. In particular, the z= field is also supposed to help you work around header reordering; you need all values to be there in order to do that. Tony Hansen tony@xxxxxxx Arvel Hathcock wrote: >> The z= tag allows you to put as many or as few headers in it as you >> want. I typically only put subject, from, to and maybe a few others >> that I regularly see getting toasted. Was this actually unclear? If >> so it might make sense to be more explicit. > > Mike, it could just be me being dense. FWIW though this text was > understood by two of us here as meaning copy all the headers: > > "A vertical-bar-separated list of header field names and copies of > header field values that identify the header fields present when the > message was signed." > > Perhaps: > > "A vertical-bar-separated list of select header field names and copies > of header field values that identify the header fields present when the > message was signed. It is not required to include all header field > names and values." > |
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| Previous by Date: | Re: z= question with X headers: 00536, Arvel Hathcock |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: z= question with X headers: 00536, william(at)elan.net |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: z= question with X headersi: 00536, Arvel Hathcock |
| Next by Thread: | Re: z= question with X headers: 00536, william(at)elan.net |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
| News | FAQ | advertise |