None here, either.
Al
On 3/19/08, MH Michael Hammer (5304) <MHammer(_at_)ag(_dot_)com> wrote:
No objections here.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 8:00 PM
To: J D Falk
Cc: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: overview document does not mention
message validity
J D Falk wrote:
>> Here's core question with this sort of overview: It can include too
>> much tutorial about basic technology, rather than focusing on the
>> specifics of the technology it is meant to describe. Some pedagogy
is
>> needed, but how much?
>
> I've been noticing that data integrity (much better term, thanks) is
> often forgotten when discussing DKIM, yet it's clearly very important
to
> some senders. Section 2 is basically "what will DKIM do for me?" --
so
> I think it should be included there.
point taken.
does anyone object to the proposed change?
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
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
--
Al Iverson on Spam and Deliverability, see http://www.spamresource.com
News, stats, info, and commentary on blacklists: http://www.dnsbl.com
My personal website: http://www.aliverson.com -- Chicago, IL, USA
Remove "lists" from my email address to reach me faster and directly.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html