----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> What is the difference? > > The second clause is only trying to make explicit that a third > party signatures is not an acceptible substitute for a first > party signature from that domain. Which it isn't. You're making > a leap that it should also cast a shadow on the first party > signature. I made no such leap. You are talking semantics. > The text definitely does not say that, and it was not > the intent since we were purposefully dancing around the > multiple signature question. > > If it has a valid first party signature, it passes. If it doesn't, > it doesn't. And if has a 3rd party signature is present for the O=! policy, then is is REJECTED whether the DRAFT says it or not. If your intepretation is to say it acceptable message, then we have a BROKEN PROTOCOL and you guys better get this all straight before moving any further. PS: I have a few bags of Cafe Bustelo that I can send you if you like? Could help you with your DOS attack project. <g> -- Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc. http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ ietf-dkim mailing list http://dkim.org
