On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 10:31:32PM -0400, Dave CROCKER allegedly wrote:
PS: Note that I'm saying nothing about whether or not this
issue should be mentioned in 4871bis.
FWIW:
Adding to a specification, by trying to protect against behavior that is
already
illegal is wasteful, redundant and opens the door to an infinite path of
similarly unnecessary provisions. Plainly bad specification methodology.
Right. This seems like it's going down a rat-hole.
There was an assertion in RFC4780 about "conforming emails" that must
only have a single 2822.From header. That got lost in the translation
to 4781 I guess. Unfortunately, 4780 failed to specify what
"conforming" means explicitly.
I also know that this WG has repeatedly stated that messages that are
not within standard MUST fail verification.
That this is not in 4871 seems to be mostly a WG assumption that
should be made explicit.
Mark.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html