On Oct 5, 2010, at 4:45 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
On 10/05/2010 01:36 PM, John Levine wrote:
Still, though, it's a solution to deal with malformations to which
MUAs are susceptible, and not strictly a DKIM problem.
Would it be a good idea to recommend in 4871bis that DKIM
implementations should not sign or verify invalid messages? I
cheerfully admit that I haven't thought out all the implications
thereof.
I'd suggest that it would be better to take that up with
rfc5822-bis since this is hardly a dkim-specific problem.
+1
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html