Michael Thomas:
> Arvel Hathcock wrote:
>
> >>10. The Protocol MUST NOT be required to be invoked if a
> >> valid first party signature is found.
> >
> >Hector, doesn_t it say exactly what you want it to say? It says
> > that the protocol must not require invocation when valid first
> > party signatures are found. It doesn't say "THOU SHALT NOT INVOKE
> > THE PROTOCOL". I see nothing that needs to be changed.
>
> Exactly.
I agree.
Wietse
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
