Mark Delany wrote: > The question is whether there is a useful subset of domains that want > a "strong" policy. > > All indications on this list are that a good number of us think "yes",
That's helpful, but probably not enough. We still need to understand why such specification is essential to the specification and why we believe it will work. To repeat: > 1. I suspect the syntax is the same, and certainly suspect we need not focus > on > possible differences. > > 2. I think that the passive/active difference involves a superset/subset > relationship. That is, I think that the active begins with the statements > made > in the passive mode, about the sender/signer, but extends them to tell the > evaluator how to use those statements. > > 3. If #2 is correct, then my question is why the extended semantics are > essential? What problems are created by not including them in the > specification? What substantial benefits are obtained by including them? d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
