On 26/Apr/11 23:50, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote:
However I suggest adding the usual waffling qualifier:
claiming (some) responsibility
I think we should drop signed from it, since that's what the entire
specification is about in the first place.
I think it is better to leave
-Original Message-
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely
Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 2:36 AM
To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Ticket #11
On 26/Apr/11 23:50, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote
On 4/27/2011 9:27 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Could be more explicit:
A single domain name that is the mandatory payload output of DKIM
and that refers to the identity claiming some responsibility for
the message by signing it.
(I've left off introduced into the mail stream.)
+1
Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 4/27/2011 9:27 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Could be more explicit:
A single domain name that is the mandatory payload output of DKIM
and that refers to the identity claiming some responsibility for
the message by signing it.
(I've left off introduced
Maybe it can be reworded:
A single domain name that is the mandatory payload output of DKIM and
that refers to the identity claiming responsibility for the signed
message introduced into the mail stream.
+1
This nicely removes reference to the act of introducing and, indeed,
-Original Message-
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org]
On Behalf Of Dave CROCKER
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 2:17 PM
To: DKIM IETF WG
Subject: [ietf-dkim] Ticket #11
Maybe it can be reworded:
A single domain name
-Original Message-
From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-
boun...@mipassoc.org] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 5:20 PM
To: DKIM IETF WG
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Ticket #11
-Original Message-
From: ietf-dkim-boun
