> Therefore, a verifier SHOULD NOT validate a message that is not > compliant with [RFC5322, RFC2045 and RFC2047] specifications. > >IMHO, it is somewhat vague. That SHOULD-NOT could be "promoted" to a >MUST-NOT for a finite number of specific features --to be explicitly >listed for readers' convenience.
I'm pretty sure we already had this argument, and SHOULD NOT was the rough consensus. R's, John _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
