This is pretty much my observation. Looking at it in the ternerary terms I suggested for 1368 I would say that the responses were
ESSENTIAL : 0% USEFUL: 30% NOT NEEDED: 60% OUT OF SCOPE: 10% NOT NEEDED combines 'NOT USEFUL' and 'OTHER IMPLEMENTATIONS'. I do want to have the option to return to this on a recharter though. I would like to see us define a policy infrastructure that is capable of being the sole authoritative source of policy for outbound SMTP messaging. To do that I want to first prove proof of utility in the DKIM space then build on that base. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell > Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 12:37 PM > To: ietf-dkim > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] 1365 yes/no > > > So far I've seen about two to one in favour of eliminating > this requirement so I guess Mike should not include it in the > next rev. > > Not that many opinions though (12, incl one offlist) so if a > storm of people show up saying that's wrong it can go back in > where we're making the changes after WGLC. > > Stephen. > _______________________________________________ > NOTE WELL: This list operates according to > http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html > _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
