> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 11:15:09 +0200
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] forward movement, please?
>
> Arvel Hathcock wrote:
>
> > I propose that the side advocating maintaining the NXDOMAIN
> > check as an actual algorithmic step agree to remove this
> > from the algorithm description in favor of placement
> > somewhere else.
>
> I favour to swap steps 1 and 2:
> Looking for _adsp._domainkey.nxdomain.example. is a waste of
> time when nxdomain.example. does not exist. I'd favour to
> keep it in the spec., it is needed for result nxdomain. If
> you nevertheless remove both (the step and the result) make
> sure to tell Murray about it.
>
> Frank
>
+1 for reasons I have shared before.
> _______________________________________________
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
> http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_________________________________________________________________
Back to work after baby–how do you know when you’re ready?
http://lifestyle.msn.com/familyandparenting/articleNW.aspx?cp-documentid=5797498&ocid=T067MSN40A0701A
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
