(I'm only subscribed to one of the three discussion lists cc'ed here.)
On 13/10/2008 11:37, "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk(_at_)sendmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
Lisa Dusseault wrote:
A) auth-header to not require any feature advertising or auto-configuration
B) auth-header to normatively RECOMMEND some kind of feature advertising
C) auth-header to normatively REQUIRE some kind of feature advertising
I'm currently between A and B. I'm fine with referencing possible
solutions, but I'm not sure I agree with the need for any normative
language.
+1
1 & 2 are what the draft should mention as experimental possibilities.
+1
4 would include DKIM signing. I'd be fine with adding a SHOULD there.
+1
--
J.D. Falk
Return Path
Work with me!
http://www.returnpath.net/careers/
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html