Subject: RE: [ietf-dkim] 1365 yes/no

From: "Hallam-Baker, Phillip" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 18:16:06 -0800

> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Arvel Hathcock

> I have had some sympathy for this in the past but now I have 
> to ask: Are we creating "Sender *SIGNING* Practices" or 
> "Sender Practices In General"?  Besides, there are already at 
> least two other ways with more traction to achieve this 
> particular goal.

This is a subtly different issue.

The charter only allows us to actualy specify "Sender *SIGNING* Practices" but that does not mean that we can't provide a framework that is capable of expressing "Sender Practices In General".

My position is that we should not address this until after we recharter.

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