mail-vet-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [mail-vet-discuss] Draft as of 9/4/2007

2007-09-05 14:03:23
SM wrote:
In Section 2.3, I suggest using engineering.example.net instead of engineering.example.edu (RFC 2606).

Done.

I'm not sure whether domainkeys should be included in there as it has Historic status.

I'm not sure either. I haven't heard that referring to historic RFCs is a disallowed or bad idea though.

Appendix B.  Legacy MUAs

I understand the rationale behind this paragraph. It attempts to solve the Legacy MUA issue. However, the proposal redefines a header already defined in the Mail Headers registry for a particular purpose.

I don't believe we're redefining anything here. We're trying to infer a hint during some transition, but that's not the same as redefining something.

I suggest changing the 192.0.128.1 to 192.0.2.1 (RFC 3330).
Done.

I suggest 192.0.2.200 here.
Done.

To be in line with the DKIM RFC:
Done.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>