Re: [ietf-dkim] When i= domain != d= domain

ietf-dkim

2006-04-28 14:11:52

Arvel Hathcock wrote:

> It seems defining the state of the signature rather than possible
> remedies would be more useful.

This makes sense to me as well.


+1

d/

--

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>

_______________________________________________

NOTE WELL: This list operates according tohttp://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
[ietf-dkim] When i= domain != d= domain, Douglas Otis Re: [ietf-dkim] When i= domain != d= domain, Paul Hoffman Re: [ietf-dkim] When i= domain != d= domain, Arvel Hathcock Re: [ietf-dkim] When i= domain != d= domain, Eric Allman Re: [ietf-dkim] When i= domain != d= domain, Michael Thomas Re: [ietf-dkim] When i= domain != d= domain, Jim Fenton RE: [ietf-dkim] When i= domain != d= domain, Bill.Oxley Re: [ietf-dkim] When i= domain != d= domain, Dave Crocker <= Re: [ietf-dkim] When i= domain != d= domain, Eric Allman Re: [ietf-dkim] When i= domain != d= domain, Stephen Farrell

Previous by Date:	Re: [ietf-dkim] z= question with X headers, Tony Hansen
Next by Date:	Re: [ietf-dkim] Body Length mechanism rejections, Mark Delany
Previous by Thread:	RE: [ietf-dkim] When i= domain != d= domain, Bill.Oxley
Next by Thread:	Re: [ietf-dkim] When i= domain != d= domain, Eric Allman
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]