Stephen Farrell wrote: > A "MUST NOT be required" is the same as a MAY. Nothing > militant there at all IMO.
It's misleading. What "we" want is that no DKIM signer or verifier is forced to support SSP at all. As soon as they (try to) support SSP they're supposed to get it right, and if that requires "check SSP for signature", then they do that. Frank _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
