[ietf-dkim] Broken signature analysis

[Dave CROCKER]

On 3/2/2010 12:42 PM, John Levine wrote:
>>> You only need to remove A-Rs that claim to be from you.
>>
>> That's a claim worth challenging.
>
> Well, that's what section 5 of RFC 5451 says.  If you think it's
> wrong, why didn't you say so back when there was time to change it?


You might consider re-reading the second paragraph of that section.

The question I am raising distinguishes between the mathematical purity of the 
MUST requirement, versus the pragmatic benefit of the MAY.

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net