On 10/05/2010 01:36 PM, John Levine wrote: >> Still, though, it's a solution to deal with malformations to which >> MUAs are susceptible, and not strictly a DKIM problem. > > Would it be a good idea to recommend in 4871bis that DKIM > implementations should not sign or verify invalid messages? I > cheerfully admit that I haven't thought out all the implications > thereof.
I'd suggest that it would be better to take that up with rfc5822-bis since this is hardly a dkim-specific problem. Mike _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
