Arvel Hathcock wrote:
> Just one suggestion.I would rewrite the second sentence like this:
>
> "This practice would be used by those domains who wish to emphasize
> security over deliverability of their messages."
>
> and leave out the bit about what we think the typical use case for
> this mi
On Oct 30, 2007, at 6:12 PM, Jeff Macdonald wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 03:28:12PM -0700, Douglas Otis wrote:
The issue whether the i= identity has been validated in some
fashion can not be answered without some specific additional
assertion added to DKIM.
I'm really having trouble und
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 03:28:12PM -0700, Douglas Otis wrote:
> The issue whether the i= identity has been validated in some fashion can
> not be answered without some specific additional assertion added to DKIM.
I'm really having trouble understanding that since i= must be part or
equal to d=, w
On Oct 30, 2007, at 12:42 PM, Arvel Hathcock wrote:
Just one suggestion.I would rewrite the second sentence like this:
"This practice would be used by those domains who wish to
emphasize security over deliverability of their messages."
Unless the "From" field is specifically asserted
Just one suggestion.I would rewrite the second sentence like this:
"This practice would be used by those domains who wish to emphasize
security over deliverability of their messages."
and leave out the bit about what we think the typical use case for this
might be. In fact, since none o
