[ietf-dkim] Re: Role of Sender header as signing domain

[Steve Atkins]

On Dec 7, 2006, at 11:53 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:

>
> Folks,
>
> Please look at the archive for numerous examples of threads
> like this, that, like this, go nowhere.
>
> I sort-of admire the energy to keep doing this, but it makes
> no progress and, in this context, is therefore futile.
>
> At this stage of the WG's progress, I think we are only
> interested in specific suggested changes to ssp-reqs, and
> we are not interested in repeats of the various positions
> of the various folks.
>
> And at this point, we are absolutely not interested in
> suggested changes to dkim-base.
>
> So, can we please get back on-topic or just say nothing,
> where that's appropriate (and my thanks to all those who've
> not, or only very slightly, taken the bait:-)
>
> To repeat, specific changes to ssp-reqs are on-topic for now,
> very little else is.

So... punctuation changes, rather than substantive changes?

Cheers,
   Steve