Barry Leiba wrote:
> While we're here, I'll point out something I missed until Paul set this
> sentence out separately: the sentence's negative is done badly, leaving
> it open to misinterpretation (it looks like it means "if NONE of them
> are there"). I think this works better:
>
> "If any tag listed as 'required' in Section 3.5 is missing from the
> DKIM-Signature header field, the verifier [...]."
+1
> "Omitted" might be better than "missing"; I'm not sure.
+1
Tony Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
