In all cases we should be defining status of an event rather than conclusions
about potential remedies
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org on behalf of Eric Allman
Sent: Fri 4/28/2006 4:10 PM
To: arvel(_dot_)hathcock(_at_)altn(_dot_)com
Cc: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] When i= domain != d= domain
> 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?
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