> -----Original Message----- > From: John R. Levine [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 3:04 PM > To: Murray S. Kucherawy > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] double header reality check > > > Validating mail syntax belongs in the specification for the mail > > components and DKIM work belongs in the DKIM components. > > That's why, layer violation or no, I think it's important to distinguish > between format errors that are likely to lead to misleading rendering in > existing MUAs, and the much larger class that may produce nonsense but > won't produce lies.
I think we're close to converging here. I totally agree that that's an important distinction to make, document, highlight and shout from the rooftops. But... Does it *have* to use RFC2119 normative language? Here's maybe a better way to frame the question: Should we empower ourselves to label a DKIM implementation that doesn't do format enforcement as (a) non-compliant, or (b) low-security/low-quality? I'm pushing for (b), while someone who insists the text be normative is pushing for (a). _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
