On 1/7/2011 2:35 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
In the list of nits I sent along some months ago, I noted that there was a
fair
amount of text that implied that a DKIM verifier produces an edited version of
the message it's verifying. I gather we agree that it doesn't, so, uh, what's
the new draft going to say?
The new documents need to resolve all errata and working group consensus about
equivalent language and detail changes.
The current round of discussion is intended to be separate from such other,
continuing work. Separate in terms of discussion, but not to the exclusion of
satisfying those existing requirements.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html