[ietf-dkim] draft Errata on RFC 4871
michael.adkins at corp.aol.com
Tue Jan 27 07:46:55 PST 2009
Yes, we are in agreement about opacity. I would even agree about the
'often irrelevant' part. It's the few large cases where it's a good
solution that I would like to make sure we can still use it.
And I didn't really mean for my comment on the errata to turn into a
discussion of this topic, so if this isn't a good time for it we can
come back to it later.
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian [mailto:ops.lists at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 7:34 AM
To: dcrocker at bbiw.net
Cc: Adkins, Michael; DKIM IETF WG
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] draft Errata on RFC 4871
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 9:03 PM, Dave CROCKER <dhc at dcrocker.net> wrote:
> It looks as if the two of you are agreeing that the i= value is indeed
> opaque to a receiver.
Cant speak for madkins but that's my impression. I would also add
"often irrelevant" besides "opaque"
Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists at gmail.com)
More information about the ietf-dkim