>Key Records: > >1) 4871bis-compliant code SHOULD be able to use > 4871-compliant key records >2) 4871-compliant code SHOULD be able to use > 4871bis-compliant key records > >Signatures: > >3) 4871-compliant code generated signatures SHOULD be > verifiable by 4871bis-compliant code >4) 4871bis-compliant code generated signatures SHOULD be > verifiable by 4871-compliant code
By SHOULD, I'm assuming we will remove some of the cruft, so that signatures that didn't depend on exotic use of the cruft will still work, e.g., an l= value is the actual body length so the body hash covers the whole body, or an x= value is in a reasonable range. The practical effect as far as I can see is only that we have to reserve the key letters of the stuff we take out so it's not reused for something else in DKIM N+1. It already says that unrecognized tags are ignored. R's, John _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
