Folks,
Paul Hoffman wrote:
I see people who supposedly agree with each other about the policy
appear disagree on the required and requested response to the policy.
Some of that is because the tone of the messages is "this is obvious"
(which it is not), and some of it is because there are long-winded
discussions of the usefulness of the messages that don't concretely say
what the recipient should/must do.
For the case of mail that is signed, I am still waiting to hear why it is not
sufficient to have a third-party use a a sub-domain of the preferred (author, or
whatever) domain name.
Hence, the signing practices requirement would only exist for unsigned messages.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html