Re: z= question with X headers

Tony Hansen wrote:

> I also read it the same way Arvel did.
Huh. Ok, then Arvel's clarification seems reasonable.

> 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.
>  

Well that's the first I've heard of that possible use of z= :) I don't 
think you need
all of the headers in z= to be able to handle repeated headers, just a 
rule like with
h=  that tells you how to interpret h=received:received. In fact, I'm 
pretty sure that
we could lift the text there about that directly.

      Mike

>         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."
> >
> >    
> _______________________________________________
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
> http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
>