Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
I thought we would be dropping this as out of scope, not redundant.
I agree: the semantics of "I send no mail" and "I sign everything"
and then send no mail are not the same. The former is a much stronger
statement.
Mike
What mechanism is there for 'never send mail today'?
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Eric Allman
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 5:21 PM
To: IETF DKIM WG
Subject: [ietf-dkim] Issue 1365: drop "never send mail"?
<https://rt.psg.com/Ticket/Display.html?id=1365>
Issue 1365 (Subject: SSP: typos) includes this brief comment from
Frank:
5.3 (2): IIRC we've identified "never send mail" as a
special case of
"strict", and then just not sending mail, let alone signing it. IMO
you can delete this point.
Based on the notes we seem the WG seems to be favoring
dropping the "never send mail" indication because it's
redundant, but we never seem to have gotten final consensus.
It makes sense to me. Does anyone want to argue that it
needs to stay? (Foolish me, I meant to say "Who wants to argue...".)
eric
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html