> -----Original Message----- > From: Dave CROCKER [mailto:d...@dcrocker.net] > Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 6:12 AM > To: Murray S. Kucherawy > Cc: DKIM > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-dkim- > mailinglists-03 > > I suggest saying "the holder of the message is requested to discard > it".
That paragraph now reads: Use of restrictive domain policies such as [ADSP] "discardable" presents an additional challenge. In that case, when a message is unsigned or the signature can no longer be verified, discarding of the message is requested. There is no exception in the policy for a message that may have been altered by an MLM, nor is there a reliable way to identify such mail. Receivers are thus advised to honor the policy and disallow the message. Does that work for people? > I'm not a huge fan of having "pro & con" in a title. > > Perhaps simply: "Signature Removal Issues". Done. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
