To: ietf-dkim(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
From: nobody(_at_)xyzzy(_dot_)claranet(_dot_)de
Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 11:15:09 +0200
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] forward movement, please?
Arvel Hathcock wrote:
I propose that the side advocating maintaining the NXDOMAIN
check as an actual algorithmic step agree to remove this
from the algorithm description in favor of placement
somewhere else.
I favour to swap steps 1 and 2:
Looking for _adsp._domainkey.nxdomain.example. is a waste of
time when nxdomain.example. does not exist. I'd favour to
keep it in the spec., it is needed for result nxdomain. If
you nevertheless remove both (the step and the result) make
sure to tell Murray about it.
Frank
+1 for reasons I have shared before.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_________________________________________________________________
Back to work after baby–how do you know when you’re ready?
http://lifestyle.msn.com/familyandparenting/articleNW.aspx?cp-documentid=5797498&ocid=T067MSN40A0701A
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html