On 10/7/09 1:36 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: > On the other hand, I'd see nothing wrong if someone should want to > write a draft about mailing-list considerations, and propose it as a > working group item. But I'd want to see it as a draft that we can > review, not just as a few ideas in an email message.
A third-party authorization/policy mechanism will not alter the base DKIM specification. I will be happy to clean up the old tpa draft for something at which to throw darts. In my prior email to Daniel, I meant to say that the simple label approach is _uncertain_ of then imposing an unreasonable domain length constraint. Where as, the hashed label approach changes the reduction that would be greater than 50%, to a reduction of less than 20%. In addition, these the limits would be obvious when authorizing any domain. -Doug _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
