Dave Crocker wrote: > Jim, > > Jim Fenton wrote: >> I don't think that the interpretation of multiple valid signatures is >> beyond the scope of this document. The overview was created in order >> to provide information on how DKIM might be used; ignoring the >> multiple signature case does not serve that purpose well. > > > For the draft text I circulated in a message postd Sun, 23 Mar 2008 > 22:39:17 -0700, what changes are you suggesting. (Or elsewhere in the > document?)
That version is quite a bit better. I'd suggest that the block "Verify Signature" be "Verify Signature(s)" instead. The diagram is a bit of a tradeoff, but I agree it needs to be. In the notes underneath, you talk about "validating", but I don't think I have seen that term defined anywhere. From the context, it seems to be authentication + assessment, but this should be more explicit. I also prefer the word "validation" to "validating". Last paragraph, s/are not defined in this document/are at the discretion of the validator./ -Jim _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
