[mail-vet-discuss] Draft as of 9/4/2007

[Murray S. Kucherawy]

SM wrote:
> In Section 2.3, I suggest using engineering.example.net instead of 
> engineering.example.edu (RFC 2606).

Done.

> I'm not sure whether domainkeys should be included in there as it has 
> Historic status.

I'm not sure either.  I haven't heard that referring to historic RFCs is 
a disallowed or bad idea though.

> Appendix B.  Legacy MUAs
>
> I understand the rationale behind this paragraph.  It attempts to 
> solve the Legacy MUA issue.  However, the proposal redefines a header 
> already defined in the Mail Headers registry for a particular purpose.

I don't believe we're redefining anything here.  We're trying to infer a 
hint during some transition, but that's not the same as redefining 
something.

> I suggest changing the 192.0.128.1 to 192.0.2.1 (RFC 3330).
Done.

> I suggest 192.0.2.200 here.
Done.

> To be in line with the DKIM RFC:
Done.