I understand the desire to constrain the SDID to be a registered name or under one, but is there a need to make this normative? DKIM verification simply won't work if the SDID doesn't meet that criterion, and perhaps that's good enough. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
- Re: [ietf-dkim] (register... J.D. Falk
- Re: [ietf-dkim] (register... Bill.Oxley
- Re: [ietf-dkim] (registered) domain na... SM
- Re: [ietf-dkim] (registered) domai... Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-dkim] (registered) ... SM
- Re: [ietf-dkim] (register... Hector Santos
- Re: [ietf-dkim] (registered) domain na... Siegel, Ellen
- Re: [ietf-dkim] (registered) domai... Tony Hansen
- Re: [ietf-dkim] (registered) ... Michael Thomas
- Re: [ietf-dkim] (register... Barry Leiba
- Re: [ietf-dkim] (register... Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [ietf-dkim] (registered) ... Douglas Otis
- Re: [ietf-dkim] (registered) domain na... Dave CROCKER
- Re: [ietf-dkim] (registered) domai... Suresh Ramasubramanian
- Re: [ietf-dkim] errata revision: opaque SM
- Re: [ietf-dkim] errata revision: opaque John Levine
- Re: [ietf-dkim] errata revision: opaque Murray S. Kucherawy
- Re: [ietf-dkim] errata revision: opaque Wietse Venema
- Re: [ietf-dkim] errata revision: opaque Michael Adkins
- Re: [ietf-dkim] errata revision: opaque Dave CROCKER
- Re: [ietf-dkim] errata revision: opaque Barry Leiba
