[ietf-dkim] Alternative text for semantics of multiple signatures

[Michael Thomas]

Paul Hoffman wrote:
> At 3:10 PM -0700 4/4/06, Michael Thomas wrote:
>> I copied this from Paul's original. I'm good either way, though
>> SHOULD seems more appropriate now.
> 
> 
> The MUST NOT was there in the earlier proposal because the association 
> between p= and the headers was by hash values. This proposal removes 
> that, and MUST NOT is not needed. If we use "SHOULD NOT", we need to say 
> when it is OK to do it anyway. Proposal: "To avoid deleting information 
> that might be valuable to the recipient, signers SHOULD NOT remove..."

Sounds good to me -- I was thinking of adding some text along the
"forensics" lines to reinforce that even bad signatures may be
useful to humans/stats collectors, etc.

		Mike