> I'd understand "timing problem", but then the overview has > the same problem with its "sender-auth-header" reference.
Screw that, the last sender-auth-header-13 still has its own "email-arch" reference, therefore using "email-arch" also in "overview" can't be a timing issue. Unrelated, I just reviewed sender-auth-header-13, could the DKIM experts here please also check it, especially section 2.4.1 ? AFAIK some wannabe-DKIM results in 2.4.1 are wrong: There is no "policy" result in DKIM, or if it makes sense it could be also used elesewhere. There is no "fail" and no "neutral" in DKIM, both are by definition the same as "none" (unsigned). The draft also covers Domainkeys, please check if all as it should be for DKIM vs. Domainkeys. Are "policy", "neutral", and "fail" in section 2.4.1 results needed for Domainkeys ? Frank _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
