Stephen Farrell wrote:
I don't believe this discussion is necessary in order to progress the ADSP
draft, which, for better or worse, is where the WG's rough consensus ended
up.
Stephen,
Happily, a community learns things about specifications as time progresses.
Sometimes that learning
On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 02:06:48 -, MH Michael Hammer (5304)
mham...@ag.com wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Jim Fenton [mailto:fen...@cisco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 8:20 PM
To: MH Michael Hammer (5304)
Cc: John L; ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Next
-Original Message-
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Charles Lindsey
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 12:18 PM
To: DKIM
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Next steps for draft-ietf-dkim-ssp
On Wed, 07 Jan 2009 02:06:48 -, MH
On Jan 6, 2009, at 6:06 PM, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
I'll stick t o inline comments at the risk of this getting confusing.
-Original Message-
From: Jim Fenton [mailto:fen...@cisco.com]
Suppose that ietf.org asserts an ADSP record but doesn't require
signatures on incoming
