Keith Moore wrote:
John Levine wrote:
This describes two different semantics for a DKIM signature. Where
does the current DKIM specification provide for such distinction in
the semantics, so that it can be reliably and accurately
interpreted by a verifying agent?
I don't think it does. And I think this is a problem.
As always, I would appreciate a description of the problem that you
believe that needs to be solved.
Yes, and you seem to want it (a) immediately, and (b) in a form that
is so lacking in detail that it is easy to argue against.
Keith,
If that's the case, I'm not sure why you're bringing these issues up.
It's sort
of an impossible position for us to be told that we need to consider/do
X/Y/Z
but not have any idea why it's important or what it even is intended to deal
with.
Mike
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org