Stephen Farrell wrote: > must be an earlier version Mike sent me.
Okay, I started to wonder if what I have might be already old. Maybe draft-ietf-dkim-ssp-requirements-00.txt still needs your approval for its "official" publication, because it's a "-00". > I'm quite sure that some requirement will contradict some > aspect of each of the current proposals, but we shouldn't > worry about that too much for now. I like to have it clear in the requirements, that IFF a future SSP won't work for such "resent" scenarios, then that has to be explicitly stated. It's relevant for a hypothetical 2822bis, if 2822bis tries to decree that all forms of Resent-* are obsolete and should be replaced by ordinary forwards as MIME message/rfc822 parts. I vaguely recall that an MMS2SMTP gateway RFC already goes in that direction, either get rid of or ignore any Resent-*. Frank _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
