On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 08:34:13 -0700 Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Folks, > >Paul Hoffman wrote: > > I see people who supposedly agree with each other about the policy >> appear disagree on the required and requested response to the policy. >> Some of that is because the tone of the messages is "this is obvious" >> (which it is not), and some of it is because there are long-winded >> discussions of the usefulness of the messages that don't concretely say >> what the recipient should/must do. > > >For the case of mail that is signed, I am still waiting to hear why it is not >sufficient to have a third-party use a a sub-domain of the preferred (author, or >whatever) domain name. > OTOH, it seems to me that it's been said Ad Nauseum. Where feasible I agree it's better, but there are operational frictions that will impede this approach in some cases.
Scott K _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
