[ietf-dkim] 1365 yes/no

[Arvel Hathcock]

+1 - ditch this fluff.

I have had some sympathy for this in the past but now I have to ask: Are 
we creating "Sender *SIGNING* Practices" or "Sender Practices In 
General"?  Besides, there are already at least two other ways with more 
traction to achieve this particular goal.

Arvel

Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
> issue #1365 calls for eliminating requirement
> 6.3.2 which says:
>  
> "   [PROVISIONAL] The Protocol MUST be able to publish a Practice
>         which is indicative that domain doesn't send mail."
> 
> If you want to eliminate that requirement say: +1
> If you want to keep that requirement say: -1
> 
> Remember: wordsmithing is for later.