Dave Crocker wrote:
>
> Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008, Florian Sager wrote:
>>> Thanks for this reminder, I forgot about this draft: maybe section 4.1
>>> can be extended by s.th. like "a Reports are requested for passed
>>> signatures inside mails with suspicious content". The same intent may
>>> already be included in 4.2 "s ... signed and Suspicious".
>> Not a bad idea. Any comments from others?
>
>
> It's unrelated to the existing published information.
>
> That doesn't mean that it is a bad idea, but it does mean that it inherently
> expands the scope of the current ASP draft.
>
> Since,
>
> a) reporting is a topic still being developed and is broader than this
> one
> idea, and
>
> b) ASP provides an extensible mechanism for later enhancement,
>
> this seems like a fine topic for... later enhancement.
I'm pretty much of the same mindset, but it does beg the question
of when we're free to recharter (or not)?
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
