Douglas Otis wrote:
On May 18, 2006, at 3:39 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
Tony Hansen wrote:
agreed. Is this better?
NEW: If there are
NEW: multiple query mechanisms listed, the choice of query
mechanism
NEW: MUST NOT change the interpretation of the signature. An
NEW: implementation MAY use recognized query mechanisms in any
NEW: order.
I think this is just opposite of my preference:
NEW: An implementation MUST use the recognized query mechanisms in the
NEW: order presented.
This would allow for upgraded behavior while preserving backward
compatability.
Why make this a must when the initial order can not be confirmed by
the verifier?
This is ridiculous. Of course it can be confirmed by the receiver if the
signature
verifies.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html