Re: z= question with X headers

The pseudo code ignores the case where multiple existences of a header
field name may exist in either/both of the h= and z= values.

        Tony

Hector Santos wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eric Allman" <eric+dkim@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <arvel.hathcock@xxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <ietf-dkim@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 3:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] z= question with X headers
> 
> 
>>> 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."
>> I've added essentially this wording.  Sorry for the confusion; it was
>> definitely ambiguous.
> 
> Thanks.  This was one of the issues I had brought in the issues list.
> 
> I think what is may be important is what to do when a header is different
> from a possible copy in the z= list.
> 
> I.e., for a mailing server that may alter the subject line to add the
> [mailinglist_name] subject tag.
> 
> Example:  This might be the correction.
> 
>     // Hash Headers
> 
>     hash = empty;
>     for each hdr in (dkim_h_list) do
> 
>       s  = mail_headers[hdr];
>       sz = dkim_z_list[hdr];  // see is copy is available
> 
>       if (s != sz) {
>          WHAT? INVALID?  Should they be the same?
>          What can cause this? Mailing list?
>       }
> 
>       if (s == "") s = sz;  // correction
> 
>       if (s != "")
>          hash += hash_string(s)
>       else
>          WHAT? INVALID?
> 
>     end for
> 
> Make sense?
> 
> ---
> Hector
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
> http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html