Re: [ietf-dkim] RFC2822.Sender

ietf-dkim

2006-08-10 10:38:10


Doug,

Douglas Otis wrote:

Actually "Signing Complete" should be as explicit assertion, whereas"Not Signing Complete" should be a default ...


That's a nice example of a design discussion. We're on requirements
now.

Stephen.
_______________________________________________

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

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
[ietf-dkim] Requirements clarification/addition: DKIM Signing Complete should include designated third parties, Scott Kitterman Re: [ietf-dkim] Requirements clarification/addition: DKIM Signing Complete should include designated third parties, Damon Re: [ietf-dkim] Requirements clarification/addition: DKIM Signing Complete should include designated third parties, Tony Hansen [ietf-dkim] RFC2822.Sender, Michael Thomas Re: [ietf-dkim] RFC2822.Sender, Stephen Farrell Re: [ietf-dkim] RFC2822.Sender, Tony Hansen Identity selection related requirements (Re: [ietf-dkim] RFC2822.Sender), william(at)elan.net Re: [ietf-dkim] RFC2822.Sender, Scott Kitterman Message not available Re: [ietf-dkim] RFC2822.Sender, Stephen Farrell <= Message not available Re: [ietf-dkim] RFC2822.Sender, Stephen Farrell Re: [ietf-dkim] RFC2822.Sender, Hector Santos Re: [ietf-dkim] RFC2822.Sender, Mark Delany Re: [ietf-dkim] Requirements clarification/addition: DKIM Signing Complete should include designated third parties, Dave Crocker

Previous by Date:	Re: [ietf-dkim] Lean vs. Fat 'requirements', Hector Santos
Next by Date:	Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Requirements comment: Bigbank example description, william(at)elan.net
Previous by Thread:	Re: [ietf-dkim] RFC2822.Sender, Scott Kitterman
Next by Thread:	Re: [ietf-dkim] RFC2822.Sender, Stephen Farrell
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]