[ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis-03 submitted
chl at clerew.man.ac.uk
Mon Feb 28 06:12:14 PST 2011
On Sat, 26 Feb 2011 15:27:03 -0000, John Levine <johnl at iecc.com> wrote:
>> Therefore, a verifier SHOULD NOT validate a message that is not
>> compliant with [RFC5322, RFC2045 and RFC2047] specifications.
>> IMHO, it is somewhat vague. That SHOULD-NOT could be "promoted" to a
>> MUST-NOT for a finite number of specific features --to be explicitly
>> listed for readers' convenience.
> I'm pretty sure we already had this argument, and SHOULD NOT was the
> rough consensus.
It may or may not be the consensus, but it does not solve the problem.
Essentially, the simpler you make the check required to be done, the more
easily you can make it a MUST. The minimum check to solve the problem is
to say that, for all the headers mentioned in the 'h=' tag and which are
supposed to occur only once, verifiers MUST check that they occur only
once (pointing to RFC 532 et al for an explanation of the rule).
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131
Email: chl at clerew.man.ac.uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
More information about the ietf-dkim