Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Nits with section 1 Introduction

From: Jim Fenton <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2007 16:07:15 -0700

Arvel, thanks for your comments.

This improves readability significantly, and I'd like to incorporate it
in its entirety.  Any objections?

-Jim

Arvel Hathcock wrote:
> Some minor suggestions:
>
> 1.  Introduction
>
>    Second and third paragraph potential rewrite:
>
>    "However, the legacy of the Internet is such that not all messages
> will be signed.  Therefore, the absence of a signature is not an a
> priori indication of forgery.  In fact, during early phases of DKIM
> deployment it must be expected that most messages will remain
> unsigned.  Nevertheless, some domains may find it highly desirable to
> advertise that they sign all their mail making the absence of a valid
> signature a potential indication of forgery.  Without a mechanism to
> do so the benefits of DKIM are limited to cases in which a valid
> signature exists and can not be extended to cases in which signatures
> are missing or are invalid.  Defining such a mechanism is the purpose
> of Sender Signing Practices."
>
>  "In the absence of a valid DKIM signature on behalf of the "From"
> address [RFC2822], message verifiers implementing this specification
> MUST determine whether messages from that address are expected to be
> signed and what signatures are acceptable.  This determination is
> referred to as a Sender Signing Practices check."
>
>
>    Fourth paragraph, start of first sentence:  "Conceivably, Sender
> Signing Practices could be extended in the future..."
>
> (more coming)
>
> Arvel
>
> _______________________________________________
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
> http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
>
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html