Re: When i= domain != d= domain

Eric Allman wrote:
>>  > It seems defining the state of the signature rather than possible
>>  > remedies would be more useful.
>
> phoffman> Fully agree.
>
> arvel> This makes sense to me as well.
>
> So is there consensus that this change belongs in -02?
I agree with the change suggested by Doug's message, but not the wording
that you actually quoted.  "Defining the state of the signature" isn't
clear, but the earlier text is.

-Jim
>
> eric
>
> _______________________________________________
> NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
> http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
>