On 05/Mar/11 02:02, Jim Fenton wrote:
1. Introduction: The opening paragraph has lost the sense that the
signer has to be authorized by the domain owner to apply a signature on
behalf of that domain. While the previous draft was a bit too
restrictive (implied that the signer had to actually be the domain
owner) this version is too loose. For the opening sentence I suggest
something like, "DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) permits a person,
role, or organization to claim some responsibility for a message by
associating a domain name [RFC1034] for which they are authorized with
the message [RFC5322]."
+1, although it may be more readable swapping the nouns around "with",
that is
DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) permits a person, role, or
organization to claim some responsibility for a message by
associating the message [RFC5322] with a domain name [RFC1034]
for which they are authorized to do so.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html