On Wednesday 09 August 2006 13:26, Damon wrote:
--- 542,556 ----
for signing its messages to a non-related domain in such a way
that it does not require active participation by the non-related
domain. That is, the published information MUST have a way to
! specify the domains that are allowed to sign on its behalf.
! Signatures by such delagatees SHOULD be treated like First
Party ! DKIM signatures.
--- 542,556 ----
for signing its messages to a non-related domain in such a way
that it does not require active participation by the non-related
domain. That is, the published information MUST have a way to
! specify the domains that are allowed to sign on its behalf.
! Signatures by such delagatees SHOULD be treated like First
Party ! DKIM signatures.
I am thinking that the SHOULD might be a MUST.
! specify the domains that are allowed to sign on its behalf.
! Signatures by such delagatees MUST be treated like First Party
! DKIM signatures.
Conceptually I agree. If there is one place in the requirements where there
should be a MUST for receiver policy, this is it. However, there seems to be
a reasonable consensus for not specifying receiver policy.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html