Scott Kitterman wrote:
I'd suggest that we MUST NOT require instead of MUST NOT
specify. That achieves the goal of not having receiver
policy cause protocol failures, but allows more freedom in
design to communicate sender expectations.
In other words it cannot say "receiver SHOULD reject", but it
could say "if receivers decide to reject they SHOULD [...]",
where that helps.
I still miss a similar detail lost on the way to 4408 2.5.4 <g>
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html