Subject: [ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: revise list labeling

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2007 09:50:46 -0800

>>   If the Sender Signing Practices record for the domain does not exist
>>    but the domain does exist, Verifier systems MUST assume that some
>>    messages from this domain are not signed and the message MUST NOT be
>>    considered Suspicious.
> 
> I think the above text should be labeled #5, since it specifies a condition
> different from #4? 

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

---

From: Jim Fenton <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 09:31:49 -0800

>> I think the above text should be labeled #5, since it specifies a

This list is not a procedure; it is describing the possible SSP check
results and the circumstances that lead to each.  But I'll agree that
it's a little bit strange to introduce "four possible results" when
there are only two:  Suspicious and not Suspicious.  This area does need
some rework.

-Jim