Frank Ellermann wrote:
Stephen Farrell wrote:
I don't think its too verbose, but I don't understand how it
answers the question I asked ;-)
You want to add a requirement "The protocol MUST...state..."
I wanted you to give me a strawman statement that would meet
that requirement (that you think is reasonable).
LOL, somewhere we're out of sync. AFAIK we're still discussing
the "requirement-02", is that correct ? For the "requirements"
we don't need to go into details about gateways etc., but we can
"require" that the future SSP defines 'DKIM signing ciomplete'
in a way understood by anybody considering to publish some kind
of "I sign everything" policy.
This might not be related but I think that we have confuse DKIM in the
last 5-8 months with these "layman" constructs when really what we
should be distinguishing it with as "Technical Constructs" such as:
"The EMAIL SENDER signs everything"
"The EMAIL OWNER/AUTHOR signs everything"
"The LIST SERVER signs everything"
etc. To me, this is more technically correct and it allows the
association with the headers to be more correct.
Now, are you proposing, suggesting, hinting, a new possible technical
constructs for NEWS?
"The NEWS SERVER/DOMAIN" signs everything"
To me, the above constructs make them more technical DKIM complete.
---
HLS
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html