On 1/22/07 3:32 PM, Douglas Otis wrote:
Not sure if it's a +1 to Paul or a -1 to Doug, but either way I
agree with Paul and John here. We need -base yesterday; save the
endless intractable arguments for SSP.
While I might agree with the urgency, this poorly worded comment
launches the SSP journey with a stated expectation that MTAs provide
full coverage of DKIM signature verification prior to messages being
obtained by end users.
No, Doug, my poorly worded comment simply reflects that the SSP journey
thus far has been full of intractable arguments. I'm not saying
anything at all about MTAs.
--
J.D. Falk, Anti-Spam Product Manager
Yahoo! Product Platform Group
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html