No objection, I think the point is well taken. Ellen
> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ietf-dkim- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Crocker > Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 8:00 PM > To: J D Falk > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] New Issue: overview document does not mention > message validity > > > > J D Falk wrote: > >> Here's core question with this sort of overview: It can include too > >> much tutorial about basic technology, rather than focusing on the > >> specifics of the technology it is meant to describe. Some pedagogy is > >> needed, but how much? > > > > I've been noticing that data integrity (much better term, thanks) is > > often forgotten when discussing DKIM, yet it's clearly very important to > > some senders. Section 2 is basically "what will DKIM do for me?" -- so > > I think it should be included there. > > > > point taken. > > does anyone object to the proposed change? > > d/ > > -- > > Dave Crocker > Brandenburg InternetWorking > bbiw.net > _______________________________________________ > NOTE WELL: This list operates according to > http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
