On 09/10/2013 01:39 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
Hi Patrik,
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 4:04 AM, Patrik Fältström p...@frobbit.se
mailto:p...@frobbit.se wrote:
What we did look at was first of all every query for an MX
resource record. Then we look at +/-1 second from the timestamp of
On 3/3/12 7:07 PM, ned+i...@mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
This draft also defines the MT-Priority header field. �It is quite unusual
for a SMTP extension specification to define a mail header field. ...
This is my major concern about this protocol as well, as I note in the
PROTO writeup (which,
Hi, Murray,
having read the draft I support its publication as experimental RFC. One
suggestion: under 'Security Considerations' add a reference to what is
said about DNSSEC in RFC6376 par. 8.5. In my opinion, the same
consideration applies for this ATPS document.
/rolf
On 12/3/11 9:32 AM,
On 8/3/11 7:13 PM, David Morris wrote:
On Wed, 3 Aug 2011, Warren Kumari wrote:
I seem to remember discussions about this a long time ago, but searching
through archives gets no love...
How do folk feel about having asking for subject_prefix to be set on the
IETF Discussion List (AKA this
One final note from me, as I want to state my current position regarding
4871bis, with respect to Last Call.
As the receiving verifier has all the information to _reliably_ [0]
determine which combination(s) [1] of From [2] and DKIM-Signature
verifies correctly, it has the means to provide
