>> 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.
It's not easier but I'm with Steve here. People are not likely to implement a spec that says that verifiers fail due to trivial syntax errors in the message. At this point, the only things I'm aware of that present a risk of bad rendering are duplicate headers and l= that doesn't cover the whole message. That list may grow in the future, but I doubt it will grow very fast. R's, John _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
