Eric Allman wrote: >> > It seems defining the state of the signature rather than possible >> > remedies would be more useful. > > phoffman> Fully agree. > > arvel> This makes sense to me as well. > > So is there consensus that this change belongs in -02? I agree with the change suggested by Doug's message, but not the wording that you actually quoted. "Defining the state of the signature" isn't clear, but the earlier text is.
-Jim > > eric > > _______________________________________________ > 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
