On Tuesday 08 August 2006 15:56, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Folks, > > Can we try to talk in terms of ssp requirements? > > If there are none arising, then perhaps this isn't > relevant at this time? > > (Personally, I don't claim to know, but it seems odd to > be messing with 2821.) > I agree it's odd, but I think it might be useful.
If the concept is deemed to be useful there would be a small impact to SSP requirements. It would at the very least be an additional use case for the list of signing domains requirement currently tagged as provisional in the requirements draft. Finally, I started writing the message that started this thread before the requirements draft was announced. I thought it might be worthwhile while we were waiting... Scott K _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
