Douglas Otis wrote:
On Sep 21, 2006, at 7:59 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
It's my opinion that "strict" means far too many things to far too
many people. Instead of rehabilitating the term, I'd far prefer that
we pick something else and really define what it means. I'm not sure
that I've achieved that and would appreciate help, but reverting
back to the handle that nobody seems to agree on doesn't strike me
as very helpful.
o DKIM Strict: the state where the domain holder believes that all
legitimate mail purportedly from the domain are sent with a
valid DKIM signature and that non-compliant services are avoided.
What is difficult to understand with this definition? Is a
definition is needed for non-compliant services?
How does this differ from scenario #1?
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html