On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:51:07 +0100, Douglas Otis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Protection depends upon which ADSP assertion is made. A LOCKED
> assertion will cause a message to be dismissed when ADSP compliance is
> enforced. Acceptance of messages with invalid signatures from mailing
> lists
By my count that went:
keep: 4
modify: 20
remove: 0
A clear consensus to modify. (See the attached for who I think went
for what.)
6 of the 20 for modify also expressed a preference for the text from
draft-levine-dkim-adsp-00.
So I take it that the authors should include a modified domain exi
Stephen Farrell wrote:
> PS: sorry for being slow with this again;-)
No problem, the outcome was rather clear, but I have a
"thing" with using the C-word, unless the person using
it is a WG Chair or AD. Now that you have used it...
> A clear consensus to modify
...I feel free to quote you (or
>> I'm trying to make the working group aware of possibly influential
>> dissent outside of the working group.
>>
>
> And how is that supposed to work ? Some persons known only to you
> allegedly prefer the ssp-03 algorithm and are possibly influential;
> what next ? There were tons of argu
On Jun 16, 2008, at 9:46 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2008, Douglas Otis wrote:
>>
>>> While such a scheme might be seen as Sender friendly if adopted,
>>> this would doom DKIM. Selectors devoid of the publishing domain
>>> offers no value. To suggest otherwise would be
On Jun 17, 2008, at 3:41 AM, Charles Lindsey wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:51:07 +0100, Douglas Otis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> abuse.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Protection depends upon which ADSP assertion is made. A LOCKED
>> assertion will cause a message to be dismissed when ADSP compliance
>> is en
Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> Now who's the one re-opening the topic?
I thought you were, but if that's not the case we can drop this
part of the discussion.
> I don't care what the "don't" reasons are anymore. I'm saying
> we have to document them so that implementors understand the
> reasons i
Douglas Otis wrote:
[about the 2606bis draft]
> Frank's list still needs to be extended to include names like
> ".local" and perhaps ".nntp" to permit address converters a
> safe mode of operation.
The idnabis-test-tlds I-D tries to say that it is no complete
list of all reserved TLDs. But it c
On Tue, 2008-06-17 at 14:21 -0700, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
> I don't care what the "don't" reasons are anymore. I'm saying we
> have
> to document them so that implementors understand the reasons it was
> deliberately omitted, and currently (other than this mailing list
> archive) we don't.
