On Oct 6, 2010, at 1:22 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org] >> On Behalf Of Mark Delany >> Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 8:06 PM >> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org >> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] THIS IS A MULTIPLE 5322.FROM MESSAGE >> >> There was an assertion in RFC4780 about "conforming emails" that must >> only have a single 2822.From header. That got lost in the translation >> to 4781 I guess. Unfortunately, 4780 failed to specify what >> "conforming" means explicitly. >> >> I also know that this WG has repeatedly stated that messages that are >> not within standard MUST fail verification. >> >> That this is not in 4871 seems to be mostly a WG assumption that >> should be made explicit. > > I think several of us thought it was in there, but on review it apparently > was indeed lost somewhere along the way. We've certainly, as I understand > it, been proceeding from that assumption for a very long time. > > I like the idea of saying so explicitly in 4871bis, and applying it both to > signers and to verifiers.
+1 > I don't like the idea of being any more specific than that. That is, I don't > want to create specific text for specific cases we know about because that > means anything we don't list could be perceived as less critical. A blanket > admonishment to implementers is sufficient and appropriate. +1 _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
