Eric points out, correctly, that issue 1534 fell through the cracks when
I was preparing the slides for last week's meeting, so we didn't discuss
it. I had intended it to go into the medium category, but we
shouldn't close it without the opportunity for some discussion.
The text of the item
On Fri, 14 Mar 2008, Frank Ellermann wrote:
[...]
Unrelated, I just reviewed sender-auth-header-13, could the
DKIM experts here please also check it, especially section
2.4.1 ? AFAIK some wannabe-DKIM results in 2.4.1 are wrong:
There is no policy result in DKIM, or if it makes sense it
You need to throw way the whole idea of mandating an MX. MX is for
OUTGOING mail. DKIM is for IMCOMING mail.
MA applies to the x821.MailFrom domain period. Attempting to tie to the
the 2822.FROM is arkward and the proposed solution is isolated to a few
systems that believe they have a
On Mar 17, 2008, at 12:31 PM, Hector Santos wrote:
You need to throw way the whole idea of mandating an MX. MX is for
OUTGOING mail. DKIM is for INCOMING mail.
While MX and A records are used to discover inbound SMTP servers, they
can also play a role in determining whether the domain
A minor typo in one of the examples has been pointed out by one of
our implementers and I don't really know the process for fixing this.
Can someone explain this for me? (Chairs maybe).
The typo is the absence of v=1 in the example on page 25. No big deal.
Mark.
Douglas Otis wrote:
On Mar 17, 2008, at 12:31 PM, Hector Santos wrote:
You need to throw way the whole idea of mandating an MX. MX is for
OUTGOING mail. DKIM is for INCOMING mail.
While MX and A records are used to discover inbound SMTP servers, they
can also play a role in
At 17:16 17-03-2008, Mark Delany wrote:
A minor typo in one of the examples has been pointed out by one of
our implementers and I don't really know the process for fixing this.
http://www.rfc-editor.org/how_to_report.html
Regards,
-sm
___
NOTE WELL:
