I suggest we step back, for a moment, and think about this some more.
I do not have a clever or clean alternative to suggest, but it strikes
me that specifying modification to message content (by truncating it) is
pretty extraordinary and likely to be problematic in terms of the
originators and recipients.
I also keep coming back to the difference between a signing mechanism
that passes or fails, versus a certification mechanism that uses the
pass/fail for making a policy decision. Whether to reject or truncate a
message falls into the latter, not the former.
d/
| 3.4.5 Body Length Limits
| ...
| Note that verifiers MAY choose to reject or truncate messages
| that have body content beyond that specified by the body length
| count.
change to:
: Note that verifiers MAY choose to truncate messages that have
: body content beyond that specified by the body length count.
Paul and Jim seem to agree --- others?
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html