[mail-vet-discuss] Proposed "header.b" tag for DKIM signatures

Michael Thomas mike at mtcc.com
Wed Mar 24 14:55:59 PDT 2010

On 03/24/2010 02:52 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Michael Thomas [mailto:mike at mtcc.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 2:48 PM
>> To: Murray S. Kucherawy
>> Cc: mail-vet-discuss at mipassoc.org
>> Subject: Re: [mail-vet-discuss] Proposed "header.b" tag for DKIM
>> signatures
>> Again, I'm not disputing the theoretical problem -- after all as you
>> mention I
>> pointed it out ages ago :) All I'm really asking is whether this is
>> actually
>> causing heartburn for people using auth-res. Like, is there some
>> automatons
>> that depend on auth-res that are puking because of the situations you
>> describe
>> above?
> No, there's no great urgency here.  I'm being pre-emptive based on some other related efforts, and this has generally not been seen (so far) to be a heavyweight change or anything controversial.

Ok. Maybe it would be good to just find out how auth-res is holding up, problems, implementation
reports, etc, and roll this up in a more general purpose update? I know you know what a pain the
process is :)


More information about the mail-vet-discuss mailing list