[ietf-dkim] Nits with section 1 Introduction
fenton at cisco.com
Thu Nov 1 15:07:15 PST 2007
Arvel, thanks for your comments.
This improves readability significantly, and I'd like to incorporate it
in its entirety. Any objections?
Arvel Hathcock wrote:
> Some minor suggestions:
> 1. Introduction
> Second and third paragraph potential rewrite:
> "However, the legacy of the Internet is such that not all messages
> will be signed. Therefore, the absence of a signature is not an a
> priori indication of forgery. In fact, during early phases of DKIM
> deployment it must be expected that most messages will remain
> unsigned. Nevertheless, some domains may find it highly desirable to
> advertise that they sign all their mail making the absence of a valid
> signature a potential indication of forgery. Without a mechanism to
> do so the benefits of DKIM are limited to cases in which a valid
> signature exists and can not be extended to cases in which signatures
> are missing or are invalid. Defining such a mechanism is the purpose
> of Sender Signing Practices."
> "In the absence of a valid DKIM signature on behalf of the "From"
> address [RFC2822], message verifiers implementing this specification
> MUST determine whether messages from that address are expected to be
> signed and what signatures are acceptable. This determination is
> referred to as a Sender Signing Practices check."
> Fourth paragraph, start of first sentence: "Conceivably, Sender
> Signing Practices could be extended in the future..."
> (more coming)
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
More information about the ietf-dkim