On 23 August 2011 06:43, S Moonesamy wrote: > I would appreciate some more feedback.
One potential conflict is an MSA following "MAY add Sender", and a DKIM signature explicitly confirming the absence of a Sender header field. Several things are odd in this scenario, but it is clearly not the wish to add a Sender. In other words, 4409bis is not a good place to discuss this oddity, and it would be very wrong if an MSA stops to add a Sender only because it breaks a "no Sender" signature. Let's remove the note, it is not helpful. If there is a problem in this scenario it is elsewhere, not in 4409bis, and not in DKIM. -Frank _______________________________________________ yam mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/yam
