Subject: RE: [ietf-dkim] Base issue: multiple linked signatures

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 16:02:17 -0800

> From: John L [mailto:[email-masked]] 

> > Its not enforceable as it is at the option of the receiver and so 
> > cannot be a MUST NOT, it could be a SHOULD NOT.
> 
> Seems to me this is a semantic niggle.  People can implement 
> whatever variant form of whatever spec they want to, but if 
> they want to interoperate and implement the signature 
> validation that DKIM specifies, that have to use the current 
> values of the headers.

Semantics is from the Greek, it means 'meaning'.

There is no part of writing a standard  that is not a semantic exercise.

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html