At 7:50 PM -0700 5/18/06, Michael Thomas wrote:
I'm fine with this being a SHOULD , fwiw. I was just repeating the original
text that Tony proposed. The key here is that the receiver should know that
the sender prefers one over the other, and hence that's it's an
ordered list. A
receiver is always at liberty to feign igornance.
I don't see the interoperability or security issue that would make
this a SHOULD. The order given shows the signer's preference; the
verifier MAY do whatever it wants.
...which goes to show why having two different formats to say the
same thing is inherently flawed.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html