Folks, Paul Hoffman wrote: > I see people who supposedly agree with each other about the policy > appear disagree on the required and requested response to the policy. > Some of that is because the tone of the messages is "this is obvious" > (which it is not), and some of it is because there are long-winded > discussions of the usefulness of the messages that don't concretely say > what the recipient should/must do.
For the case of mail that is signed, I am still waiting to hear why it is not sufficient to have a third-party use a a sub-domain of the preferred (author, or whatever) domain name. Hence, the signing practices requirement would only exist for unsigned messages. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
