>>> 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. ...
>No, it merely reflects a difference of opinion by the sites concerned as >to what changes it will tolerate in a message before it recommends to its >clients that the message should be dropped. It is not the job of our >standard to dictate local policy issues at that level of detail. I agree that we are not dictating local policy. But I really think that it's our job to dictate the definition of what the signature validation algorithm is. As I've said before, everyone remains free to do whatever they want with messages whether or not the signature verifies, including applying various heuristics to develop opinions about unsigned messages. R's, John _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
