Re: [ietf-dkim] THIS IS A MULTIPLE 5322.FROM MESSAGE

Again, please don't CC me.  I'm subscribed to the list.

Stephen Farrell wrote:

> On 05/10/10 23:54, Julian Mehnle wrote:
> > Recommending that one more "From" be added to h= (and hashed)
> > than From headers are initially placed in the message should be
> > enough. There is no need to change the semantics of the spec.
> Assuming that "recommending" above maps to a (putative)
> "MUST/SHOULD" statement in 4871bis, I'd be interested in
> opinions as to whether such a change might slow progress
> to draft standard, or be detrimental to current deployments.
Yeah, possibly.  I wasn't even thinking of using RFC 2119 verbiage.

As I've written in my previous mail I think there's a better way to solve 
this (non-)issue.  Just s/Comments/From/ in that INFORMATIVE NOTE on page 
41 of 4871bis-01.  What do you think?

-Julian

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html