-----Original Message-----
From: Dave CROCKER [mailto:dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net]
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 6:12 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: DKIM
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-dkim-
mailinglists-03
I suggest saying "the holder of the message is requested to discard
it".
That paragraph now reads:
Use of restrictive domain policies such as [ADSP] "discardable"
presents an additional challenge. In that case, when a message is
unsigned or the signature can no longer be verified, discarding of
the message is requested. There is no exception in the policy for a
message that may have been altered by an MLM, nor is there a reliable
way to identify such mail. Receivers are thus advised to honor the
policy and disallow the message.
Does that work for people?
I'm not a huge fan of having "pro & con" in a title.
Perhaps simply: "Signature Removal Issues".
Done.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html