I suspect that "says something technically wrong" is meant to constrain
things to the specification content, but that's not what the RFC-Editor
definition says, nor is it clear to me that it should be that constrained.
I agree. I think it mostly should, but that there should be judgment involved.
The current error has technical import, since we are talking about a broken
validation.
So, I'm not at all clear that this qualifies as only an 'Editorial' error.
I don't see it that way.
I think there's a difference between an example that includes
"Reply-To" when it should have included "Subject" (that'd be a
technical error) and an example that includes "Sujbect" when it should
have included "Subject" (that'd be an editorial error)... even though
both of those errors might cause the signature not to verify.
I think an incorrect number of space characters is in the latter category.
Barry
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html