On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Dave CROCKER <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Stephen Farrell wrote: >> Firstly, do we have rough consensus on the substance of >> the erratum? > > > Folks, > > Given how far-ranging discussion has gotten, it's probably worth taking a > moment > and getting a sense of the group about the original issue, namely: > > What are the group's thoughts on the draft Errata that > has been submitted to the group? Is there consensus? > > If you like it in it current form, it would help to see a +1. > > If you believe the current base specification does not need any changes for > the > concern that the draft Errata pursue, then it would help to see a -1.
I'm reading it over closely and am positive on it overall. If you would be so kind, would you help me understand the concept of a UAID a bit better. It's an email address, but it can be non-resolvable? What's a real world example of that -- in how either an ISP or ESP would want to sign in such a way? I'm a bit cornfused. Thanks, Al Iverson -- Al Iverson on Spam and Deliverability, see http://www.spamresource.com News, stats, info, and commentary on blacklists: http://www.dnsbl.com My personal website: http://www.aliverson.com -- Chicago, IL, USA _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
