> From: John L [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Its not enforceable as it is at the option of the receiver and so > > cannot be a MUST NOT, it could be a SHOULD NOT. > > Seems to me this is a semantic niggle. People can implement > whatever variant form of whatever spec they want to, but if > they want to interoperate and implement the signature > validation that DKIM specifies, that have to use the current > values of the headers. Semantics is from the Greek, it means 'meaning'. There is no part of writing a standard that is not a semantic exercise. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
