On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 21:01:42 +0100, Tony Hansen <tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com> wrote:
I've noticed that a number of implementations haven't been putting in a
propspec when the result is a failure. And I think this may be the
correct thing to do in certain cases.
If this is the consensus of the group, then this change to the ABNF
would be in order, to make propspec optional:
old: header = "Authentication-Results:" [CFWS] authserv-id
old: [CFWS] *(";" methodspec propspec [CFWS])
new: header = "Authentication-Results:" [CFWS] authserv-id
new: [CFWS] *(";" methodspec [propspec CFWS])
Yes, but I would still like to see the possibility of more than one
<propspec>. So I would /[propspec CFWS]/*(propspec CFWS)/.
--
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