On 27/Jun/11 23:38, Michael Deutschmann wrote: > > * Put it in its own RFC * > > I think there's room for a "Minimum Quality of Forgery Supression" BCP. > Such an RFC would outline a number of faults a message can have, and > declare that any of those faults mean the message MUST NOT be delivered > to the nominal recipient.
+1, revising RFC 2505, whose date is in last century, should be due. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
