Barry Leiba wrote:
This discussion seems to have settled down, but I don't see a clear
consensus on it. Let's take a little poll, then, on this thread. No
further discussion, for now, just the poll, and please don't assume
that silence means anything.
Post to this thread, one of the following:
"Include the informative note."
"Do not include the informative note."
"I don't care [or I have no opinion] either way."
Just to clarify the version of the Informative Note that I believe is
"in play" at this point, it should be the one that's based on Ellen
Siegel's wording:
Informative Note: DKIM signatures by parent domains as described in
section 3.8 of [RFC4871] (in which a signer uses "i=" to assert that
it is signing for a subdomain) do not satisfy the requirements for
an Author Domain Signature as defined above.
-Jim
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html