-----Original Message-----
From: John Levine [mailto:johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com]
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 9:25 PM
To: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Cc: Murray S. Kucherawy
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal for new text about multiple header issues
I mostly agree. (Wow!)
Huzzah!
2) Refuse outright to sign or verify any message that is not
syntactically valid.
Rather than be so absolutist, I'd say "any message with syntax errors that
are likely
to cause MUAs or other applications to interpret it inconsistently."
The thought is that two Subject lines is worth rejecting, an extra at
sign in the Message-ID is not.
I'm fine with that if we think implementers will find it easier to construct a
comprehensive "likely" list versus just enforcing the spec.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html