Scott Kitterman wrote: > I'd suggest that we MUST NOT require instead of MUST NOT > specify. That achieves the goal of not having receiver > policy cause protocol failures, but allows more freedom in > design to communicate sender expectations.
In other words it cannot say "receiver SHOULD reject", but it could say "if receivers decide to reject they SHOULD [...]", where that helps. I still miss a similar detail lost on the way to 4408 2.5.4 <g> _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
