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 [...]." > > "Omitted" might be better than "missing"; I'm not sure.
+1 to the concern and the approach to alternate wording. Perhaps: If the DKIM-Signature header field does not contain one or more of the tags listed as 'required' in Section 3.5, then the verifier [...] d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
