[ietf-dkim] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-dkim-mailinglists-03
Murray S. Kucherawy
msk at cloudmark.com
Wed Oct 6 06:49:49 PDT 2010
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave CROCKER [mailto:dhc at dcrocker.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2010 6:12 AM
> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
> Cc: DKIM
> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-dkim-
> I suggest saying "the holder of the message is requested to discard
That paragraph now reads:
Use of restrictive domain policies such as [ADSP] "discardable"
presents an additional challenge. In that case, when a message is
unsigned or the signature can no longer be verified, discarding of
the message is requested. There is no exception in the policy for a
message that may have been altered by an MLM, nor is there a reliable
way to identify such mail. Receivers are thus advised to honor the
policy and disallow the message.
Does that work for people?
> I'm not a huge fan of having "pro & con" in a title.
> Perhaps simply: "Signature Removal Issues".
More information about the ietf-dkim