[ietf-dkim] why we should clearly specify domain existence
dot at dotat.at
Tue May 27 08:51:04 PDT 2008
On Tue, 27 May 2008, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> It's also the definition of result "nxdomain" in Murray's draft,
> if you want "nomailfqdn" (or a similar name), where NXDOMAIN is
> only a proper subset, it's okay.
What's the filename of that draft?
None of the drafts I have read defines symbolic names for the ADSP
results, so I don't see why you keep going on about "nxdomain" results.
In any case it's backwards to complain that we can't fix the semantics
because they will no longer match the semantics we are trying to fix.
f.anthony.n.finch <dot at dotat.at> http://dotat.at/
NORTH FITZROY SOLE: MAINLY NORTHERLY 5 OR 6, BECOMING VARIABLE 3 OR 4, BUT
CYCLONIC AT FIRST IN NORTH FITZROY. MODERATE OR ROUGH, OCCASIONALLY VERY ROUGH
AT FIRST. SHOWERS. MODERATE, OCCASIONALLY POOR.
More information about the ietf-dkim