> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:ietf-dkim- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Murray S. Kucherawy > Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 5:20 PM > To: DKIM IETF WG > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Ticket #11 > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:ietf-dkim- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Dave CROCKER > > Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 2:17 PM > > To: DKIM IETF WG > > Subject: [ietf-dkim] Ticket #11 > > > > > Maybe it can be reworded: > > > > > > A single domain name that is the mandatory payload output of > DKIM and > > > that refers to the identity claiming responsibility for the > signed > > > message introduced into the mail stream. > > > > +1 > > > > This nicely removes reference to the act of introducing and, indeed, > that act > > isn't really what DKIM covers, per se. > > > > However I suggest adding the usual waffling qualifier: > > > > claiming (some) responsibility > > I think we should drop "signed" from it, since that's what the entire > specification is about in the first place. >
I think it is better to leave "signed" in. It is explicit and correct. Consider the case of a signer which (intentionally) does not sign all mail that it might. Mike _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
