On Wednesday 09 August 2006 13:26, Damon wrote: > > --- 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. > Conceptually I agree. If there is one place in the requirements where there should be a MUST for receiver policy, this is it. However, there seems to be a reasonable consensus for not specifying receiver policy.
Scott K _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
