On Sun, 10 May 2009, Dave CROCKER wrote:
For l=, a MAY for signers produces a MUST for verifiers.
Why is that necessarily the case?
If a signer bases their signature on use of an l= value, then the
signature will fail if the verifier does not implement it.
That was kind of my point. And I think that's OK, since even though my
verifiers do implement it, local policy in the assessor agent could
disregard its validation anyway.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html