Stephen Farrell wrote:
must be an earlier version Mike sent me.
Okay, I started to wonder if what I have might be already old.
Maybe draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements-00.txt still needs your
approval for its "official" publication, because it's a "-00".
I'm quite sure that some requirement will contradict some
aspect of each of the current proposals, but we shouldn't
worry about that too much for now.
I like to have it clear in the requirements, that IFF a future
SSP won't work for such "resent" scenarios, then that has to be
explicitly stated.
It's relevant for a hypothetical 2822bis, if 2822bis tries to
decree that all forms of Resent-* are obsolete and should be
replaced by ordinary forwards as MIME message/rfc822 parts.
I vaguely recall that an MMS2SMTP gateway RFC already goes in
that direction, either get rid of or ignore any Resent-*.
Frank
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html