On 1/7/2011 2:35 PM, John R. Levine wrote: > In the list of nits I sent along some months ago, I noted that there was a > fair > amount of text that implied that a DKIM verifier produces an edited version of > the message it's verifying. I gather we agree that it doesn't, so, uh, what's > the new draft going to say?
The new documents need to resolve all errata and working group consensus about equivalent language and detail changes. The current round of discussion is intended to be separate from such other, continuing work. Separate in terms of discussion, but not to the exclusion of satisfying those existing requirements. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
