Dave Crocker wrote:
Jim,
Jim Fenton wrote:
I don't think that the interpretation of multiple valid signatures is
beyond the scope of this document. The overview was created in order
to provide information on how DKIM might be used; ignoring the
multiple signature case does not serve that purpose well.
For the draft text I circulated in a message postd Sun, 23 Mar 2008
22:39:17 -0700, what changes are you suggesting. (Or elsewhere in the
document?)
That version is quite a bit better. I'd suggest that the block "Verify
Signature" be "Verify Signature(s)" instead. The diagram is a bit of a
tradeoff, but I agree it needs to be.
In the notes underneath, you talk about "validating", but I don't think
I have seen that term defined anywhere. From the context, it seems to
be authentication + assessment, but this should be more explicit. I
also prefer the word "validation" to "validating".
Last paragraph, s/are not defined in this document/are at the discretion
of the validator./
-Jim
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html