J D Falk wrote:
> We should not let forward progress be halted by the possibility that
> someone might establish an entirely-internal-to-them policy that some of
> us might disagree with.
s/might/will/ ...
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
___
Eliot Lear wrote:
> Jeff Macdonald wrote:
>> The only thing that worries me is someone will tie their reputation
>> system to the identity instead of the identifier. There is lots of
>> advice for a company (an identity) to put different types of mail
>> streams on different IPs. So logically one
Jeff Macdonald wrote:
> The only thing that worries me is someone will tie their reputation
> system to the identity instead of the identifier. There is lots of
> advice for a company (an identity) to put different types of mail
> streams on different IPs. So logically one would use different DKIM
On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 17:35 +, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
> Dave Crocker wrote:
> > Stephen,
> >
> > I fear that this is a real matter of technical confusion -- not just
> > literary taste -- and that the source of confusion is common to the
> > topic and not just how the document is written
Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
>
> Dave Crocker wrote:
>> Stephen,
>>
>> I fear that this is a real matter of technical confusion -- not just
>> literary taste -- and that the source of confusion is common to the
>> topic and not just how the document is written.
>>
>> That's not to say that the wr
Dave Crocker wrote:
> Stephen,
>
> I fear that this is a real matter of technical confusion -- not just
> literary taste -- and that the source of confusion is common to the
> topic and not just how the document is written.
>
> That's not to say that the writing might not be contributing to t
Stephen,
I fear that this is a real matter of technical confusion -- not just literary
taste -- and that the source of confusion is common to the topic and not just
how the document is written.
That's not to say that the writing might not be contributing to the confusion.
So let's see if we ca
(As a participant only again)
The use of the term "identity" throughout is somewhat confusing. I
don't have a simple change to suggest. As an example, the start of
section 2 says: "Given the presence of that identifier, a receiver can
make decisions about further handling of the message, based u
