I would treat it the same way as a broken ssl certificate, with suspicion. Rather than determining what is acceptable policy we should briefly outline what consists of a valid dkim sig with a brief note that policy is in the eye of the beholder. thanks, Bill
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Dave Crocker Sent: Fri 2/10/2006 6:47 PM To: Michael Thomas Cc: IETF DKIM WG Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] testing Message Corpus & question for base spec > This group has been taking a pretty anti-Postel posture, so the > consistent answer > would be to consider it badly formed and thus broken. Whether that's the > right > answer... I am guessing that the Postel reference is for being liberal in what you accept. That guidance always has limits, of course. The wrangling over canonicalization is an example of very much trying to be liberal. But Postel never meant, for example, that one should accept a semi-colon if the syntax called for a period. There are reasonable distortions imposed by the net and there are unreasonable errors imposed by originators. The latter need to lose. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://bbiw.net> _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://dkim.org/ietf-list-rules.html _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://dkim.org/ietf-list-rules.html
