+1
Dave CROCKER wrote:
> On 4/27/2011 9:27 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>>> Could be more explicit:
>>>
>>>A single domain name that is the mandatory payload output of DKIM
>>>and that refers to the identity claiming some responsibility for
>>>the message by signing it.
>>>
>>> (I've
On 4/27/2011 9:27 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> Could be more explicit:
>>
>>A single domain name that is the mandatory payload output of DKIM
>>and that refers to the identity claiming some responsibility for
>>the message by signing it.
>>
>> (I've left off "introduced into the m
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely
> Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 2:36 AM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Ticket #11
>
> On 26/Apr/11
On 26/Apr/11 23:50, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
>>> However I suggest adding the usual waffling qualifier:
>>>
>>> claiming (some) responsibility
>>
>> I think we should drop "signed" from it, since that's what the entire
>> specification is about in the first place.
>>
>
> I think it is
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 5:20 PM
> To: DKIM IETF WG
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Ticket #11
>
> > -Original Messa
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Dave CROCKER
> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 2:17 PM
> To: DKIM IETF WG
> Subject: [ietf-dkim] Ticket #11
>
> > Maybe it can be reworded:
>
> Maybe it can be reworded:
>
> A single domain name that is the mandatory payload output of DKIM and
> that refers to the identity claiming responsibility for the signed
> message introduced into the mail stream.
+1
This nicely removes reference to the act of introducing and, indeed
