Doug,
That's better, since it uses requirements language, but unfortunately
still not understandable (for me at any rate).
Douglas Otis wrote:
Rephrased:
The policy should be able to indicate:
- What signing domains are authoritative for the First Party Address.
(The policy specifies which signing domain qualify the First Party
Address as being valid.)
AND
- What signing domains are exclusively used by the First Party Address.
(DKIM Signer Complete)
Are "authoritative for" and "exclusively used by" well defined? IMO
they're not (and the latter is used ambiguously as well).
I also doubt that we need either concept.
Stephen.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html