Re: z= question with X headers

The revised wording ignores the case where multiple existences of a
header field name may exist in either/both of the h= and z= values. It's
still ambiguous.

        Tony Hansen
        tony@xxxxxxx

Eric Allman wrote:
>> 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.