>After all of the discussion a few months ago about the need to consider >all of the addresses in the From header field (and not just the first >one, lest we break RFC 2822, etc.) shouldn't we use the plural here? > >Also, the second sentence conflicts with the definition of Author >Signature in section 2.7. I suggest the following: > >This document specifies an adjunct mechanism to aid in assessing >messages that do not contain a valid DKIM signature corresponding to the >author address(es) in the message. > >I would keep the old version of the third sentence, that makes it >clearer that it's domains that are doing the advertising.
Yes, those all seem reasonable to me. As I hardly need tell you, no matter how long and hard one stares at a document, there's always editorial problems that escape notice until someone else looks at it. R's, John _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
