Re: [ietf-dkim] Protecting messages, not MUAs, MTAs, or anything else
--On 18 October 2010 20:07:39 -0400 John R. Levine jo...@iecc.com wrote: So, uh, can we agree that Jim's SHOULD language to tell people to do this is a good idea? +1 Yes, please. -- Ian Eiloart IT Services, University of Sussex 01273-873148 x3148 For new support requests, see http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/ ___ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
Re: [ietf-dkim] Protecting messages, not MUAs, MTAs, or anything else
John R. Levine wrote: So, uh, can we agree that Jim's SHOULD language to tell people to do this is a good idea? Yes. +1. I think I was the first to agree with Jim's input and didn't see much follow up except you and maybe another person. Maybe Barry can provide a repeat of the exact change proposal and get a preliminary show of hands. Personally? I think from a reader standpoint: Additional 5322.From Exception Paragraph in Section 5.4 after the paragraph about use the last field found That is where a reader/developer will begin to scratch his header on what headers to sign and verify. So it needs a quick by the way paragraph regarding a special exception for 5322.From against the use the last field rule in the previous paragraph. But in the name of moving forward, Jim's text does the job. -- Hector Santos, CTO http://www.santronics.com http://santronics.blogspot.com ___ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
