Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
> Siegel, Ellen wrote:
>>> -Original Message-
>>> On Behalf Of John Levine
>>>
>>> Seems like a reasonable way to avoid the i= fight. If there's interest,
>>> I can whip up a new ADSP draft with an r= tag.
>>>
>> Sounds like a good approach to me.
>
> Just in cas
Siegel, Ellen wrote:
>
>> -Original Message-
>> On Behalf Of John Levine
>>
>> Seems like a reasonable way to avoid the i= fight. If there's interest,
>> I can whip up a new ADSP draft with an r= tag.
>>
>
> Sounds like a good approach to me.
Just in case: Please don't prepare a new A
> -Original Message-
> On Behalf Of John Levine
>
> Seems like a reasonable way to avoid the i= fight. If there's interest,
> I can whip up a new ADSP draft with an r= tag.
>
Sounds like a good approach to me.
Ellen
___
NOTE WELL: This li
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 10:40:18AM -, John Levine wrote:
>>I'm not sure what my opinion is on that last point, but on the first
>>point I think it's best to define an identifier that's specifically
>>for ADSP's use, if we want that function. Some signers may give that
>>tag the same value they
John Levine wrote:
>> I'm not sure what my opinion is on that last point, but on the first
>> point I think it's best to define an identifier that's specifically
>> for ADSP's use, if we want that function. Some signers may give that
>> tag the same value they give i=, and there's no harm done. S
John Levine:
> >I'm not sure what my opinion is on that last point, but on the first
> >point I think it's best to define an identifier that's specifically
> >for ADSP's use, if we want that function. Some signers may give that
> >tag the same value they give i=, and there's no harm done. Some
>
>I'm not sure what my opinion is on that last point, but on the first
>point I think it's best to define an identifier that's specifically
>for ADSP's use, if we want that function. Some signers may give that
>tag the same value they give i=, and there's no harm done. Some
>signers may use a diff
Dave says...
> 2. d= is sufficient for ADSP's stated goal.
>
> 3. The current ADSP re-defines i= semantics. While this is theoretically
> legal, it is neither necessary nor useful. So the important question is not
> about legality, but about need. ADSP's use of i= makes the meaning of DKIM
> co
MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
> With regard to the other discussion, for the implementations I'm engaged
> in, d= works fine for ADSP. I recognize that for other implementations
> using i= provides additional value. I therefore would support keeping
> the reference string (domain part or HRS of i
> -Original Message-
> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
> boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Barry Leiba
> Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 3:20 PM
> To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Handling the errata after the consensus call
>
> The discussion s
10 matches
Mail list logo
