Mark Delany:
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.
+1. This makes more sense to me than trying to enumerate all the
possible effects of malformed messages on naive programs.
An explicit example may help to motivate the reader ("Invalid
messages must never verify; for example messages with multiple
Subject:, From: or To: header fields").
Wietse
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html