On Feb 12, 2009, at 1:32 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 19:39:45 +0100 Eliot Lear <lear(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
Yes, and I would prefer the multi-stage approach, because I
consider draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871-errata-02 to be excessive to the
problem at hand, lacking consideration for the appropriate
tradeoffs on readability.
+1 (since we're counting).
+1 agreed.
The WG should also discuss the merits of making a statement warning
against a domain overlapping their valid namespace with fictitious or
token i= values. While such overlap should be discouraged to avoid
confusing recipients as to what the i= values means, this has received
little discussion other than to say the i= value represents a totally
separate namespace. Since this statement is _not_ always true, some
effort should be made by the domain to ensure that there is no
apparent overlap within the same message. Several techniques can
ensure the isolation of different i= value uses.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html