ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] How to reconcile passive vs active?

2006-08-07 06:18:44

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Farrell" <stephen(_dot_)farrell(_at_)cs(_dot_)tcd(_dot_)ie>


Chair-ish quibble: I think the positions exposed on the list
must of course be covered in reqs-00, but I also think the
more words that are used to do that, the more disagreement we'll
get. Put another way,  I hope no-one wants to see a reqs-00
that has near as many words as have been posted to this list
over the last couple of weeks.

+1,

I'll be happy with just a fascimile of the following block of words:

 - Protocol must offer support for the following domain
   policies:

    - no mail ever expected by domain
    - no signature expected whatsoever by domain
    - domain signature optional, no third party expected
    - domain signature optional, 3rd party allowed. See below.
    - domain signature required, 3rd party allowed. See below.
    - domain signature required, no 3rd party expected

 - Protocol must support optional "allow list" of domain allowed
   to sign.

Bonus Block of Words:

 - Protocol must offer optional "Highest Hashing Method
   Possible" understood by target end point.

Maybe MT can just cut and paste this small block of words in and I think
reached pareto's ratio! <g>

--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com







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