Re: [ietf-dkim] 1360, "delegation" vs "designation".

ietf-dkim

Re: [ietf-dkim] 1360, "delegation" vs "designation".

2006-10-16 13:24:44

On Monday 16 October 2006 15:12, Douglas Otis wrote:

4) Customer signing requires unique keys rather than unique sub-domains.


Not to belabor the overall issue, but this particular point is inaccurate.  
I've done it single key with multiple customer domains and no NS delegation.

Scott K
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

[More with this subject...]

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
[ietf-dkim] Summary of DKIM jabber meeting on 12 Oct, DKIM Chair [ietf-dkim] 1360, "delegation" vs "designation"., Scott Kitterman Message not available Re: [ietf-dkim] 1360, "delegation" vs "designation"., Scott Kitterman <= [ietf-dkim] 1365, with a question about the "we never send mail", Scott Kitterman Re: [ietf-dkim] 1365, with a question about the "we never send mail", Stephen Farrell Re: [ietf-dkim] 1365, with a question about the "we never send mail", Scott Kitterman Re: [ietf-dkim] 1365, with a question about the "we never send mail", Steve Atkins Re: [ietf-dkim] 1365, with a question about the "we never send mail", Dave Crocker Re: [ietf-dkim] 1365, with a question about the "we never send mail", Damon

Previous by Date:	Re: [ietf-dkim] 1365, with a question about the "we never send mail", Damon
Next by Date:	[ietf-dkim] www.dkim.org is now a full-fledged "direct" web address, Dave Crocker
Previous by Thread:	[ietf-dkim] 1360, "delegation" vs "designation"., Scott Kitterman
Next by Thread:	[ietf-dkim] 1365, with a question about the "we never send mail", Scott Kitterman
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]