----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Thomas" <mike(_at_)mtcc(_dot_)com>
What is the difference?
The second clause is only trying to make explicit that a third
party signatures is not an acceptible substitute for a first
party signature from that domain. Which it isn't. You're making
a leap that it should also cast a shadow on the first party
signature.
I made no such leap. You are talking semantics.
The text definitely does not say that, and it was not
the intent since we were purposefully dancing around the
multiple signature question.
If it has a valid first party signature, it passes. If it doesn't,
it doesn't.
And if has a 3rd party signature is present for the O=! policy, then is
is REJECTED whether the DRAFT says it or not. If your intepretation is
to say it acceptable message, then we have a BROKEN PROTOCOL and you
guys better get this all straight before moving any further.
PS: I have a few bags of Cafe Bustelo that I can send you if you like?
Could help you with your DOS attack project. <g>
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org