On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Dave CROCKER <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
wrote:
Stephen Farrell wrote:
Firstly, do we have rough consensus on the substance of
the erratum?
Folks,
Given how far-ranging discussion has gotten, it's probably worth taking a
moment
and getting a sense of the group about the original issue, namely:
What are the group's thoughts on the draft Errata that
has been submitted to the group? Is there consensus?
If you like it in it current form, it would help to see a +1.
If you believe the current base specification does not need any changes for
the
concern that the draft Errata pursue, then it would help to see a -1.
I'm reading it over closely and am positive on it overall.
If you would be so kind, would you help me understand the concept of a
UAID a bit better. It's an email address, but it can be
non-resolvable? What's a real world example of that -- in how either
an ISP or ESP would want to sign in such a way? I'm a bit cornfused.
Thanks,
Al Iverson
--
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
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html