This is with reference to Proposition 1 in Robert Ash's notes.
I don't think the Dedekind assumption is necessary.
Explicitly, if $A$ is an integral domain with fraction field $K$ and $L/K$ is Galois, let $B$ be the integral closure of $A$ in $L$. Then, I claim that any element of the Galois group $G$ of $L/K$ acts on the set of prime ideals lying over a prime $P\subseteq A$.
Let $Q$ be a prime ideal in $B$ lying over $P$. Then, if $\sigma \in G$ and $\sigma(x) \sigma(y) \in \sigma(Q)$ then, $\sigma(xy)\in \sigma(Q)$. Applying, $\sigma ^{-1}$, we get $xy\in Q$ and hence either $x$ or $y$ is in $Q$ and thus, either $\sigma(x)$ or $\sigma(y)$ is in $\sigma(Q)$.
Finally, $\sigma$ is an automorphism and hence preserves intersections and also fixes $A$ and hence $P$, so $\sigma(Q) \cap A= \sigma(Q) \cap \sigma(A) = \sigma(Q\cap A)= \sigma(P)=P$.
Are there any holes in this argument?
I am doubting since I have seen three sets of number theory notes which use the Dedekind assumption.