Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP - should we drop the cryptic o=. syntax for somethin

--On February 17, 2006 10:02:37 AM +0000 Stephen Farrell<stephen(_dot_)farrell(_at_)cs(_dot_)tcd(_dot_)ie> wrote:

+2


+3.  I always have to look the damned things up.

eric
_______________________________________________

NOTE WELL: This list operates according tohttp://dkim.org/ietf-list-rules.html

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
[ietf-dkim] SSP - should we drop the cryptic o=. syntax for something a little more readable?, Mark Delany Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP - should we drop the cryptic o=. syntax for something a little more readable?, Tony Hansen Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP - should we drop the cryptic o=. syntax for something a little more readable?, Stephen Farrell Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP - should we drop the cryptic o=. syntax for something a little more readable?, Eric Allman <= Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP - should we drop the cryptic o=. syntax for something a little more readable?, Michael Thomas Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP - should we drop the cryptic o=. syntax for something a little more readable?, Eric Allman Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP - should we drop the cryptic o=. syntax for something a little more readable?, Michael Thomas Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP - should we drop the cryptic o=. syntax for something a little more readable?, Tony Hansen [ietf-dkim] Re: SSP - should we drop the cryptic o=. syntax for something a little more readable?, Frank Ellermann Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: SSP - should we drop the cryptic o=. syntax for something a little more readable?, Mark Delany [ietf-dkim] Re: SSP - should we drop the cryptic o=. syntax for something a little more readable?, Frank Ellermann Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: SSP - should we drop the cryptic o=. syntax for something a little more readable?, william(at)elan.net

Re: [ietf-dkim] SSP - should we drop the cryptic o=. syntax for something a little more readable?