On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 5:22 AM, John R. Levine <johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com>
wrote:
someone asked me about case sensitiveness of the header field name. I
looked
for an ABNF in RFC6376, but only found examples and informative notes.
I was going to say that can't possibly be true, but it's true, there's no
ABNF for the header. So, for example, I don't know whether the v= field
has to come first. Send an erratum, we'll probably accept it as hold for
update.
"v=1" doesn't have to come first. It just usually does. I think there was
a version of RFC4871 that did that, but then when challenged we couldn't
come up with a good reason to keep it that way.
-MSK
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html