[ietf-dkim] Role of Sender header as signing domain
stephen.farrell at cs.tcd.ie
Wed Nov 29 06:49:12 PST 2006
Charles Lindsey wrote:
> OK, this is a petition for reopening this Issue. That gives 1 vote, but
> you will need lots more to take action. So I invite anyone else who
> supports this view to reply with a +1. If there is insufficient support,
> then I will shut up.
First, thanks for taking this attitude, I really do appreciate you
being constructive even though you've gotten involved after this was
already decided in the WG.
After a little more than 24 hours the net score is about zero there.
And I'm entirely sure there're folks who've not said anything but who
don't want to change base as you'd like, so in fact, it'd most likely
really be a negative score.
So I guess that's that then - there is nothing like a consensus to
re-open this topic for base, and so we won't. (If the tables turn in
the next day or two, then I'm ok with changing, but it seems clear
enough to me call it already.)
PS: The discussion as to which field to use to query SSP records,
is a separate, though related, one, where we can't yet say that we
have a consensus (since we're only on ssp-reqs and not protocols).
More information about the ietf-dkim