Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
NOMAIL is out of scope, wildcards for signature policy are not.
Deja-vu. NOMAIL is not out of scope in SSP and you need to STOP saying
it. The CONFUSING VOTE that was taking - I still don't now show what
it meant but it was not what it would to be removed from SSP!
There are two deployment stories we need to be able to give,
> one that meets 95% of needs with legacy infrastructure support,
> the second that meets 100% of needs with a minor incremental
> change to the legacy infrastructure.
I don't see how SSP violates this principle.
The second of these provides a slot ready made
> for NOMAIL, (and for STARTTLE, PGP and SMIME if you like).
Oy vey! So then it is not out of scope as you said.
I am meeting your set of requirements in full. I am just
> not doing so in such a way that my proposal is out of scope,
> that is all.
Well, I would like to know who proposed this lame rule that it should be
out of scope when it wasn't and was clearly part of all the sepcs - SSP
and DSAP specs.
If people voted under the disquise of a general "NO MAIL" concept across
the board, well, it is clear now this is not what they voted for because
you are making provisions for it.
I don't understand why is so secret. I don't want a NO-MAIL DKIM policy
to be dependent on a KLUDGED MX concept or LMAP support.
--
Sincerely
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
