> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Paul Hoffman
> That's not what Doug said. He said: > > > >During a transition, it would be important to communicate > >> what will be > >> >offered and what has been deprecated. Then these > options MUST be > >> >available or the related signatures MUST be ignored. > > I specifically object to the last three words. OK, that is fine. What I was trying to say is that it is possible to meet the security requirement that Doug raised without coming into conflict with base. The security requirement here is not a MUST. The only reason to look at a policy record is: 1) There is no security record there at all 2) You do not find one that you like It is only in the second case that you would find a good signature and go look for a policy record anyway. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
