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

From: "Charles Lindsey" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 12:28:06 -0000

On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 22:23:53 -0000, Stephen Farrell  
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> issue #1365 calls for eliminating requirement
> 6.3.2 which says:
>
> "   [PROVISIONAL] The Protocol MUST be able to publish a Practice
>          which is indicative that domain doesn't send mail."
>
> If you want to eliminate that requirement say: +1
> If you want to keep that requirement say: -1

-1

-- 
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131                       
   Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: [email-masked]      Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9      Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2007 21:34:46 +0100

> If you want to eliminate that requirement say: +1
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^
+1, it's no _requirement_ - maybe it's an _option_ 

Frank

---

From: Jeff Macdonald <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 16:11:57 -0500

+1

On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 10:23:53PM +0000, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Remember: wordsmithing is for later.
> 
> Stephen.
> 

-- 
:: Jeff Macdonald | Principal Engineer, Messaging Technologies
:: e-Dialog | [email-masked]
:: 131 Hartwell Ave. | Lexington, MA 02421 
:: v: 781-372-1922 | f: 781-863-8118 
:: www.e-dialog.com

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 17:36:55 +0000

So far I've seen about two to one in favour of eliminating
this requirement so I guess Mike should not include it in
the next rev.

Not that many opinions though (12, incl one offlist) so if
a storm of people show up saying that's wrong it can go
back in where we're making the changes after WGLC.

Stephen.