On May 18, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
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.
Sorry, my mistake. I was still thinking about multiple signatures.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html