Hi Hector,
At 09:28 16-10-10, Hector Santos wrote:
> From an IETF procedural angle. :)
I'll comment on how I read what the WG Chairs said in general
terms. If you believe that the process followed is not fair, you
could discuss the matter with the WG Chairs. I'll quote a message
from a WG C
On 10/15/10 4:50 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> On Friday, October 15, 2010 2:30 PM, Douglas Otis wrote:
>>
>> Citing a layer violation makes little sense. With DKIM, the message
>> body does not stand on its own. DKIM binds elements related to the
>> RFC5322 header fields with the message b
> Don't think of DKIM as being inviolate offering only a disjointed
> sacrosanct identifier. DKIM process must also guard against the
> exploitation of its results
+1
By DKIM process, I would include anything cognizant of DKIM upto but
not including the MUA. Mike's secret sauce would count her
