In all cases we should be defining status of an event rather than conclusions about potential remedies
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Eric Allman Sent: Fri 4/28/2006 4:10 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] When i= domain != d= domain > > 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? 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
