Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal for new text about multiple header issues (why multiple h= singleton listing is an ineffective hack, why RFC 5322 compliance is a fuzzy term, and what about malformed MIME str

> -Original Message- > From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org] > On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely > Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2010 12:09 PM > To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org > Subject: [...] > > Uh, ok, you're right. I guess I should have stopped arguing

Re: [ietf-dkim] The Total Solution is an Integrated One.

Charles Lindsey wrote: > On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 02:04:16 -, Hector Santos wrote: > >> It is (A) that is most important here and this is where the corrective >> text should be added. The original ISSUE Posting included proposed >> text to follow the "last header" paragraph in Section 5.4: >> >>

Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal for new text about multiple header issues (why multiple h= singleton listing is an ineffective hack, why RFC 5322 compliance is a fuzzy term, and what about malformed MIME str

On 03/Nov/10 14:54, John R. Levine wrote: > At this point, it would be helpful if you could propose specific language > for 4871bis. And if it's not presuming 5322 compliance, it would also be > helpful if you could say in detail what a DKIM signer and verifier should > do if presented with, say,