Stephen,
I'm not saying drop ADSP as I am really looking forward to being one of
the early publishers of ADSP records as a means of assisting receivers
in addressing abuse.
On the other hand, if Suresh has a better way of achieving the goal of
declaring one signs all email with DKIM, it is certainly worth a
discussion.
If such a discussion is truly beyond the charter of IETF-DKIM then I
would recommend that Suresh post his proposal to ASRG.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: Stephen Farrell
[mailto:stephen(_dot_)farrell(_at_)cs(_dot_)tcd(_dot_)ie]
Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 10:49 AM
To: MH Michael Hammer (5304)
Cc: Suresh Ramasubramanian; IETF-DKIM
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Handling the errata after the consensus call
MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
Please offer a better way of indicating that mail is always signed.
Actually, please don't. We were chartered to do ADSP and we've
(almost) done that. Unless someone's looking to recharter I don't
see how this list is relevant for other ways to do what ADSP does
or for ways to do something else, or for yet more discussion as
to what ADSP does is wonderful/terrible.
Can we get back to the options mentioned in Barry's mail?
Thanks,
Stephen.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html