Stephen, I'm not saying drop ADSP as I am really looking forward to being one of the early publishers of ADSP records as a means of assisting receivers in addressing abuse.
On the other hand, if Suresh has a better way of achieving the goal of declaring one signs all email with DKIM, it is certainly worth a discussion. If such a discussion is truly beyond the charter of IETF-DKIM then I would recommend that Suresh post his proposal to ASRG. Mike > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 10:49 AM > To: MH Michael Hammer (5304) > Cc: Suresh Ramasubramanian; IETF-DKIM > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Handling the errata after the consensus call > > > > MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote: > > Please offer a better way of indicating that mail is always signed. > > Actually, please don't. We were chartered to do ADSP and we've > (almost) done that. Unless someone's looking to recharter I don't > see how this list is relevant for other ways to do what ADSP does > or for ways to do something else, or for yet more discussion as > to what ADSP does is wonderful/terrible. > > Can we get back to the options mentioned in Barry's mail? > > Thanks, > Stephen. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
