On 10/8/2010 9:28 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > I'm still cringing at the layering violation of "fixing" in DKIM the fact > that many RFC5322 implementations, MTAs, MSAs and MUAs alike, don't bother to > enforce normative portions of that specification. > > Is there precedent of this being done elsewhere, i.e. compensating in one > protocol for abundant lousy implementations of a layer below it?
I'm a bit confused. We want to re-submit DKIM Signing to Proposed Standard, in order to fix an edge condition that is only a theoretical issue and only fixes a problem that is actually outside of the scope of what DKIM is trying to achieve? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
