A mailing list is an original mail object that is comprised of vetted
submitted material much like a newspaper. It should take submitted
material, empty the accompanied envelope and remail using a fresh clean
envelope with new headers.
Thanks,
Bill Oxley
Messaging Engineer
Cox Communications
404
Bill,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A mailing list is an original mail object that is comprised of vetted
submitted material much like a newspaper. It should take submitted
material, empty the accompanied envelope and remail using a fresh clean
envelope with new headers.
In the abstract, the model
On Dec 3, 2007, at 8:58 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
Bill,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A mailing list is an original mail object that is comprised of
vetted submitted material much like a newspaper. It should take
submitted material, empty the accompanied envelope and remail using
a fresh clean
Couple of additions. [1] (IETF tools page [2] will update sometime,
not sure when.)
AOB time now down to about 15 mins.
Regards,
Stephen.
[1] http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/07dec/agenda/dkim.txt
[2] http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dkim/agenda
___
NOTE WELL
Review of:
DKIM Sender Signing Practices (draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-01)
Reviewed by:
D. Crocker
4 December 2007
The DKIM working group has followed its specification of a base method for
associating a responsible identity to an email, via cryptographic signing,
with the curre
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
>Review of:
>
> DKIM Sender Signing Practices (draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-01)
Wow, thanks for a very thorough review.
The biggest problem with this draft is that it goes way beyond
defining a protocol.
Part of it describes the way that senders publish
On Monday 03 December 2007 23:23, John Levine wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write:
> >Review of:
> >
> > DKIM Sender Signing Practices (draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-01)
>
> Wow, thanks for a very thorough review.
>
> The biggest problem with this draft is that it goes way beyond
> de
> While senders certainly can't dictate receiver policy, giving an
> indication of what they expect to have happen is perfectly
> reasonable and reduces uncertainty.
Uncertainty about what? You can be 100% certain that if you've
published your policies in SSP, any receiver who cares to know about
On 4 Dec 2007 05:40:27 - John Levine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> While senders certainly can't dictate receiver policy, giving an
>> indication of what they expect to have happen is perfectly
>> reasonable and reduces uncertainty.
>
>Uncertainty about what? You can be 100% certain that if yo
