--On 16 September 2010 07:05:34 -0400 "MH Michael Hammer (5304)"
wrote:
>
> Ian, this makes no sense to me. If a signing domain is concerned enough
> to choose to implement ADSP, why would they reduce what they are signing
> to accommodate a small percentage of their mail going to MLMs that th
Jeff,
Thanks...
On 9/22/2010 12:18 PM, Jeff Macdonald wrote:
> Section 3.9:
>
> INFORMATIVE DISCUSSION: This document does not require the value
> of the SDID or AUID to match the identifier in any other message
> header field.
>
> should "the identifier" be "an identifier"?
pretty s
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
> On Behalf Of Dave CROCKER
> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 10:19 AM
> To: Jeff Macdonald
> Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis
>
> well, t
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Macdonald
> Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2010 3:18 PM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis
>
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at
+1
On 9/23/2010 1:34 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
>> On Behalf Of Dave CROCKER
>> Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2010 10:19 AM
>> To: Jeff Macdonald
>> Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
>> Subj
Ian, this makes no sense to me. If a signing domain is concerned enough
to choose to implement ADSP, why would they reduce what they are signing
to accommodate a small percentage of their mail going to MLMs that they
may or may not be able to identify?
I'm with you. All of this emphasis on comp
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
> To make sure I understand the intent: move the set of subsections that
> introduce higher-level constructs, to come before the sub-sections that
> define syntactic elements?
>
> Sounds like an improvement to me.
Yes and thanks!
--
Jeff M
>> Sounds like an improvement to me.
>
>Yes and thanks!
Seems unanimous. Dave, do you have enough changes to do another
version?
R's,
John
___
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
John R. Levine wrote:
> That's why my advice is that lists should sign their mail, which is easy
> and at worst harmless, and we're done.
-1. As others as stated as well, it all depends on your mail
integration into your ADMD.
--
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics
On 9/23/2010 4:07 PM, John Levine wrote:
> Seems unanimous. Dave, do you have enough changes to do another
> version?
I was planning on waiting a couple of (work) days.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
NOTE WELL:
10 matches
Mail list logo