> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Alessandro Vesely > Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2011 2:36 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Ticket #11 > > On 26/Apr/11 23:50, MH Michael Hammer (5304) wrote: > >>> 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. > > Could be more explicit: > > A single domain name that is the mandatory payload output of DKIM > and that refers to the identity claiming some responsibility for > the message by signing it. > > (I've left off "introduced into the mail stream.")
I think I could live with that. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
