Paul Hoffman wrote:
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.
This seems to match up with the semantics of SHOULD if you ask me: the
receiver
should honor the senders wishes unless it has some overriding reason why
it doesn't
want to do that.
...which goes to show why having two different formats to say the same
thing is inherently flawed.
That assumes that the two are now and evermore identical. I don't think
that's
a very good assumption, which is why SHOULD above makes sense.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html