Re: [mail-vet-discuss] Straw consensus call on auth-header draft

Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> 4 would include DKIM signing.  I'd be fine with adding a SHOULD there.

SHOULD?  You would specify a normative SHOULD for protecting a DKIM validation 
with a(nother) DKIM signature?

This begs the question:  why bother to do the first validation; why not simply 
wait and let whoever would have validated the first instead validate the first?

d/
-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html