[ietf-dkim] testing Message Corpus & question for base spec

[Bill.Oxley at cox.com]

I would treat it the same way as a broken ssl certificate, with suspicion. Rather than determining what is acceptable policy we should briefly outline what consists of a valid dkim sig with a brief note that policy is in the eye of the beholder.
thanks,
Bill


-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces at mipassoc.org on behalf of Dave Crocker
Sent: Fri 2/10/2006 6:47 PM
To: Michael Thomas
Cc: IETF DKIM WG
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] testing Message Corpus & question for base spec
 



> This group has been taking a pretty anti-Postel posture, so the 
> consistent answer
> would be to consider it badly formed and thus broken. Whether that's the 
> right
> answer...


I am guessing that the Postel reference is for being liberal in what you accept.

That guidance always has limits, of course.  The wrangling over canonicalization 
is an example of very much trying to be liberal.

But Postel never meant, for example, that one should accept a semi-colon if the 
syntax called for a period.  There are reasonable distortions imposed by the net 
and there are unreasonable errors imposed by originators.  The latter need to lose.

d/

-- 

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