On 5/11/09 7:51 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
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?
Right. l= may simply be ignored and the signature considered invalid if
the message is different. On the other hand, have we really spotted
valid use cases? I was pondering cooperating DKIM senders and mailing
lists and the possible use of multipart/alternative, but that seems far
more complex than useful.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html