John Levine wrote: >> We should require that DKIM signers only sign messages that are >> RFC 2822 conformant. (We will need a small amount of text that >> explains why.) > > I'd be inclined to say that messages to be signed SHOULD conform to > 2822. There are some 822 MTAs that produce nice clean messages that > pass through relays with little trouble, such as the one I'm using.
Fair point. Offhand I cannot think of a downside, by using SHOULD rather than MUST. The SHOULD asserts the importance quite clearly, and it is not as if doing 822 rather than 2822 can cause damage anywhere but to the verification of the particular message. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
