>Perhaps one solution might be to go register "not-checked" under RFC5451 >for both SPF and DKIM, and then this could be mandatory. That seems >overkill though, unless we can decide we really want that (or that it >would be a good idea to do regardless).
I don't understand what the problem is with people reporting what they report. If they checked both, fine, if not, well, what's wrong with that? >> Message-ID: this is just wrong, RFC 5965 does not report it. > >I don't agree with this one. What's wrong with adding this here even >though RFC5965 doesn't include it? What's the point? Neither SPF nor DKIM use it. It's in the copy of the message if you want it, just like all the other headers. R's, John _______________________________________________ marf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/marf
