Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: Responsibility concerns with DesignatedSigningDomains

From: "Hector Santos" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 07:14:33 -0400

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
To: "Hector Santos" <[email-masked]>

> And I further believe that the position as stated by Wietse
> does represent the consensus of the WG, so I don't think we
> should continue to argue the merits or otherwise of various
> possibilities for DKIM-base signature semantics.

[Correction to my previous response]

Then are we going to change the DKIM-BASE document?

It is not a mistake to suggest there is a statement or 
implication of the MUST has 2822.From mandate.  Section 5.4 
clearly goes into what headers should be considered for 
specific reasons.  There is a strong reason for that.

--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com

_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html