ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Nits with section 1 Introduction

2007-11-02 10:23:00
Arvel, thanks for your comments.

This improves readability significantly, and I'd like to incorporate it
in its entirety.  Any objections?

-Jim

Arvel Hathcock wrote:
Some minor suggestions:

1.  Introduction

   Second and third paragraph potential rewrite:

   "However, the legacy of the Internet is such that not all messages
will be signed.  Therefore, the absence of a signature is not an a
priori indication of forgery.  In fact, during early phases of DKIM
deployment it must be expected that most messages will remain
unsigned.  Nevertheless, some domains may find it highly desirable to
advertise that they sign all their mail making the absence of a valid
signature a potential indication of forgery.  Without a mechanism to
do so the benefits of DKIM are limited to cases in which a valid
signature exists and can not be extended to cases in which signatures
are missing or are invalid.  Defining such a mechanism is the purpose
of Sender Signing Practices."

 "In the absence of a valid DKIM signature on behalf of the "From"
address [RFC2822], message verifiers implementing this specification
MUST determine whether messages from that address are expected to be
signed and what signatures are acceptable.  This determination is
referred to as a Sender Signing Practices check."


   Fourth paragraph, start of first sentence:  "Conceivably, Sender
Signing Practices could be extended in the future..."

(more coming)

Arvel

_______________________________________________
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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: [ietf-dkim] Nits with section 1 Introduction, Jim Fenton <=