----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Farrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]>
> Folks, > > If there are other things Mike should be doing with reqs-01 that > haven't been said on the list, now is probably a good time to > raise them (in a new thread). I'm taking your off list advice and posting this here: [Offlist] Hector wrote: My only concern about all this is that the process has been hijacked by those who believe a REPUTATION LAYER is the only solution to be used with DKIM-BASE. I'm afraid the requirements will be written in a way to water down any strong SSP consideration. Evidence of that is req #10 and the provisional considerations that the authors themselves don't believe in. Stephen replied: That is a valid concern. I encourage you to keep defending your position. -- Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc. http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
