On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:27:23 +0100, Eliot Lear <lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>
wrote:
Ok, well then we don't agree. The information simply cannot be trusted
unless it's signed, and if it's signed there will be agents that can't
verify it. I can tell you that I would encourage administrators to
strip it at the border because of the risk of misinterpretation and
spoofing. This having been said, the wording used in Section 3.1 is
close. I would make the first two SHOULD NOTs MUST NOTs.
-1
It would be stretching RFC2119 beyond its breaking point to use MUST NOT
for those two.
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131
Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html