[ietf-dkim] Alternative text for semantics of multiple signatures
arvel.hathcock at altn.com
Wed Apr 5 09:29:58 PDT 2006
> 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..."
Yes. With that change and the previous "SHOULD" becoming "should" as
discussed by Stephen and Mike I think this text is very good.
More information about the ietf-dkim