On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 5:22 AM, John R. Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote:
> someone asked me about case sensitiveness of the header field name. I >> looked >> for an ABNF in RFC6376, but only found examples and informative notes. >> > > I was going to say that can't possibly be true, but it's true, there's no > ABNF for the header. So, for example, I don't know whether the v= field > has to come first. Send an erratum, we'll probably accept it as hold for > update. > "v=1" doesn't have to come first. It just usually does. I think there was a version of RFC4871 that did that, but then when challenged we couldn't come up with a good reason to keep it that way. -MSK
_______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
