Frank Ellermann wrote:
> Douglas Otis wrote:
>
> [base-00 3.5 x=]
>
>>The MUST in the draft may be a bit harsh.
>
>
> Yes, s/MUST/SHOULD/ makes sense, e.g. if a MUA behind IMAP
I dunno, what does X.509 say about expired certificates?
I'm a little bit worried about the law of unintended consequences
here. Right now we have exactly two states: fully verifies, or
doesn't and is equivalent to no signature at all. What is the
ramification of allowing for a third state? Are there exploits
which become available? What about over all reliability/stability
when some receivers interpret the SHOULD differently?
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://dkim.org/ietf-list-rules.html