On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:34:13 -0700 Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
wrote:
Folks,
Paul Hoffman wrote:
I see people who supposedly agree with each other about the policy
appear disagree on the required and requested response to the policy.
Some of that is because the tone of the messages is "this is obvious"
(which it is not), and some of it is because there are long-winded
discussions of the usefulness of the messages that don't concretely say
what the recipient should/must do.
For the case of mail that is signed, I am still waiting to hear why it is
not
sufficient to have a third-party use a a sub-domain of the preferred
(author, or
whatever) domain name.
OTOH, it seems to me that it's been said Ad Nauseum. Where feasible I
agree it's better, but there are operational frictions that will impede
this approach in some cases.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html