That this is not in 4871 seems to be mostly a WG assumption that
should be made explicit.
I think several of us thought it was in there, but on review it apparently
was indeed lost somewhere along the way. We've certainly, as I understand
it, been proceeding from that assumption for a very long time.
I like the idea of saying so explicitly in 4871bis, and applying it both to
signers and to verifiers.
Agreed. Though frankly I couldn't care less about signers. It's always
the verifier that really counts.
I don't like the idea of being any more specific than that. That
is, I don't want to create specific text for specific cases we know
about because that means anything we don't list could be perceived
as less critical. A blanket admonishment to implementers is
sufficient and appropriate.
Right. We could attempt to enumerate the 1,000 edge-cases we know
today and then re-bis 4871 for the additional 1,000 edge-cases we
learn tomorrow, or we could simply say that invalid 2822 messages
MUST never verify and call it a day.
Mark.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html