On 05/Mar/11 02:02, Jim Fenton wrote: > 1. Introduction: The opening paragraph has lost the sense that the > signer has to be authorized by the domain owner to apply a signature on > behalf of that domain. While the previous draft was a bit too > restrictive (implied that the signer had to actually be the domain > owner) this version is too loose. For the opening sentence I suggest > something like, "DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) permits a person, > role, or organization to claim some responsibility for a message by > associating a domain name [RFC1034] for which they are authorized with > the message [RFC5322]."
+1, although it may be more readable swapping the nouns around "with", that is DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) permits a person, role, or organization to claim some responsibility for a message by associating the message [RFC5322] with a domain name [RFC1034] for which they are authorized to do so. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html