Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Tuesday 08 August 2006 15:56,
stephen(_dot_)farrell(_at_)cs(_dot_)tcd(_dot_)ie wrote:
Folks,
Can we try to talk in terms of ssp requirements?
If there are none arising, then perhaps this isn't
relevant at this time?
(Personally, I don't claim to know, but it seems odd to
be messing with 2821.)
I agree it's odd, but I think it might be useful.
If the concept is deemed to be useful there would be a small impact to SSP
requirements. It would at the very least be an additional use case for the
list of signing domains requirement currently tagged as provisional in the
requirements draft.
So I suggest writing it up in a form that could be added to that part
of the document and then seeing if it gets support.
Stephen.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html