Re: [ietf-dkim] layer violations, was detecting header mutations after s

On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 17:45:39 +0100, John R. Levine <johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com> 
wrote:

> Well, yeah.  That's why I don't understand why people are so opposed to a
> SHOULD saying they should.
Or even a MUST saying they must.

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131                       
   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html