>> 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.
The chairs are pretty sure that's correct. Barry, as chair _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
