Maybe we should leave the charter text as it is, and wait until we start
beating on the document before we decide whether we want to call it
"policy" or "declaration" or "bad thing that we've decided not to do
after all."
Good idea!
Me too - I think we can finesse the terminology later on.
- Original Message -
From: "Barry Leiba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "IETF DKIM pre-WG"
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 9:36 PM
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM charter
> > I really like your suggestion in
> > http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2005q4/001359.html that we move
> > away fro
Thank you. I looked at the text here, and there are only two places
where we say "policy", and I can't see a good way to turn either of
those directly into "declaration" without changing what they mean.
The first says, "and to publish 'policy' information about how it
applies those signatures.
The parenthetical seems to be a bit misplaced, and might fit better to
the use of the word "legitimate". This might read more easily if broken
into two sentences.
Actually, the content and placement of the parenthetical is due to an
attempt to correct a misunderstanding followed by awkwardness
Doug,
It would seem consensus may have been reach by those convinced that
since many abusive messages spoof the email-address, limiting the use of
an email-address therefore prevents abusive messages.
1. Are you attempting to declare the existing consensus invalid?
2. If you are, what is
On Nov 14, 2005, at 4:04 PM, Jim Fenton wrote:
At this stage of the game, with substantial consensus on the
current wording, I think we should be making only small, surgical
changes than complete changes in wording.
It would seem consensus may have been reach by those convinced that
sinc
At this stage of the game, with substantial consensus on the current
wording, I think we should be making only small, surgical changes than
complete changes in wording.
The ability for the message to be signed by a different domain is
covered by the wording in the first paragraph, "...that all
On 11/14/2005 18:25, Douglas Otis wrote:
> On Nov 14, 2005, at 2:04 PM, Jim Fenton wrote:
> > Barry,
> >
> >> DESCRIPTION OF WORKING GROUP:
> >>
> >> The Internet mail protocols and infrastructure allow mail sent
> >> from one
> >> domain to purport to be from another. While there are sometimes
>
On Nov 14, 2005, at 2:04 PM, Jim Fenton wrote:
Barry,
DESCRIPTION OF WORKING GROUP:
The Internet mail protocols and infrastructure allow mail sent
from one
domain to purport to be from another. While there are sometimes
legitimate
reasons for doing this, it has become a source of gener
Barry,
This is very good, and entirely acceptable IMO. I have a few
suggestions for what they're worth; take them or leave them as you please.
Barry Leiba wrote:
-
DRAFT IETF WORKING GROUP CHARTER
8 Nov 2005
Domain Keys I
Assuming that's "threat"... what do you mean by "impact considerations"?
How a "known Feature or Expected Logic" may alter or effect current
operations.
This should not be construed as a threat unless there is an entry point that
causes an expected mode of operation to run amonk.
OK, that's w
On 11/13/2005 14:41, Tony Hansen wrote:
> To get past the contentions around SSP, I'm wondering if we should
> change the wording slightly, as follows.
>
> Tony Hansen
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Barry Leiba wrote:
> > -
> > DRAFT IE
12 matches
Mail list logo
