-----Original Message-----
From: John R. Levine [mailto:johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 3:04 PM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] double header reality check
Validating mail syntax belongs in the specification for the mail
components and DKIM work belongs in the DKIM components.
That's why, layer violation or no, I think it's important to distinguish
between format errors that are likely to lead to misleading rendering in
existing MUAs, and the much larger class that may produce nonsense but
won't produce lies.
I think we're close to converging here.
I totally agree that that's an important distinction to make, document,
highlight and shout from the rooftops. But... Does it *have* to use RFC2119
normative language?
Here's maybe a better way to frame the question: Should we empower ourselves to
label a DKIM implementation that doesn't do format enforcement as (a)
non-compliant, or (b) low-security/low-quality?
I'm pushing for (b), while someone who insists the text be normative is pushing
for (a).
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html