Re: [ietf-dkim] Ticket #11

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 5:20 PM
> To: DKIM IETF WG
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Ticket #11
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Dave CROCKER
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 2:17 PM
> > To: DKIM IETF WG
> > Subject: [ietf-dkim] Ticket #11
> >
> > > Maybe it can be reworded:
> > >
> > >     A single domain name that is the mandatory payload output of
> DKIM and
> > >     that refers to the identity claiming responsibility for the
> signed
> > >     message introduced into the mail stream.
> > +1
> >
> > This nicely removes reference to the act of introducing and, indeed,
> that act
> > isn't really what DKIM covers, per se.
> >
> > However I suggest adding the usual waffling qualifier:
> >
> >     claiming (some) responsibility
> I think we should drop "signed" from it, since that's what the entire
> specification is about in the first place.
I think it is better to leave "signed" in. It is explicit and correct.
Consider the case of a signer which (intentionally) does not sign all
mail that it might.

Mike

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html