Eric Allman wrote:
> It seems defining the state of the signature rather than possible
> remedies would be more useful.
phoffman> Fully agree.
arvel> This makes sense to me as well.
So is there consensus that this change belongs in -02?
I agree with the change suggested by Doug's message, but not the wording
that you actually quoted. "Defining the state of the signature" isn't
clear, but the earlier text is.
-Jim
eric
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html