--- 542,556 ----
for signing its messages to a non-related domain in such a way
that it does not require active participation by the non-related
domain. That is, the published information MUST have a way to
! specify the domains that are allowed to sign on its behalf.
! Signatures by such delagatees SHOULD be treated like First Party
! DKIM signatures.
--- 542,556 ----
for signing its messages to a non-related domain in such a way
that it does not require active participation by the non-related
domain. That is, the published information MUST have a way to
! specify the domains that are allowed to sign on its behalf.
! Signatures by such delagatees SHOULD be treated like First Party
! DKIM signatures.
I am thinking that the SHOULD might be a MUST.
! specify the domains that are allowed to sign on its behalf.
! Signatures by such delagatees MUST be treated like First Party
! DKIM signatures.
Regards,
Damon Sauer
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
