On Thursday 04 January 2007 14:18, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote: > The rules are very clear, MUST can only be used in cases when breaking the > rule will inevitably produce incompatibility. > > > Speculation that breaking the rule might produce incompatibility is not > enough. RFC 2119 is very clear.
>From my perspective having a message have a valid signature with one implementation and having a broken signature with another is an incompatibility. I don't think that's speculation. I think it's the clear and obvious result of trying to reconstruct the original content and seeing if a valid signature can be extracted based on a process not specified. I think what we are discussing here qualifies as an incompatibility. Scott K _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
