> -----Original Message----- > From: John Levine [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 9:25 PM > To: [email protected] > Cc: Murray S. Kucherawy > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal for new text about multiple header issues > > I mostly agree. (Wow!)
Huzzah! > >2) Refuse outright to sign or verify any message that is not > syntactically valid. > > Rather than be so absolutist, I'd say "any message with syntax errors that > are likely > to cause MUAs or other applications to interpret it inconsistently." > > The thought is that two Subject lines is worth rejecting, an extra at > sign in the Message-ID is not. I'm fine with that if we think implementers will find it easier to construct a comprehensive "likely" list versus just enforcing the spec. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
