Shouldn't we move forward Murray's draft "quickly" that allows to report back broken DKIM signature to the validating domain?
This would allow to collect information on why signature gets broken making the DKIM draft stronger. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Barry Leiba" <[email protected]> To: "IETF DKIM WG" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, 23 February, 2010 12:40:15 PM Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposed new charter > Here is a charter proposal for us to bash. It covers the items we > voted on. As a working group, we'll need to agree on the wording, and > come up with a few reasonable milestones with dates. It's only been a few days, but so far we're getting good agreement on the charter text, but no milestones and dates. We'd really like the working group -- not the chairs -- to decide on the deliverables and the dates. If folks are willing to agree to text, but not to be clear about what we'll produce when, we think that's a sign of insufficient energy to move forward. If y'all want to do this, we'll need some proposals for what gets accomplished and when, so we can discuss that too. Barry, as chair _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
