Re: [ietf-dkim] Protecting messages, not MUAs, MTAs, or anything else

John R. Levine wrote:

> So, uh, can we agree that Jim's SHOULD language to tell people to do 
> this is a good idea?
Yes. +1.  I think I was the first to agree with Jim's input and didn't 
see much follow up except you and maybe another person.

Maybe Barry can provide a repeat of the exact change proposal and get 
a preliminary show of hands.

Personally?

I think from a reader standpoint:

   Additional 5322.From Exception Paragraph in Section 5.4 after
   the paragraph about "use the last field found"

That is where a reader/developer will begin to scratch his header on 
what headers to sign and verify.  So it needs a quick "by the way" 
paragraph regarding a special exception for 5322.From against the "use 
the last field" rule in the previous paragraph.

But in the name of moving forward, Jim's text does the job.

-- 
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com


_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html