Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > Specifically, it's clear to me, from WG > conversations and hallway track at MAAWG and elsewhere, that more guidance is > needed in terms of how DKIM results get interpreted in certain contexts such > as mailing lists and other third-party signing. Even if the output of that > process is "DKIM doesn't tell you anything here", this needs to be more > explicit. > > If we don't want to change this document so late in its evolution, that's > fine; I'd be happy if it came out as a BCP document later, either from the > IETF or through a body like MAAWG.
Separate BCP on details on usage: +1 d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
