Doug,
Douglas Otis wrote:
The duration of the signature should cover the "expected" distribution
of transit times for a message from the originator to recipient.
Sure. Can you get us the peer reviewed stats so we can
remove those quotes from "expected"?
I certainly don't have 'em, and in the absence of such
real, agreed-upon information I think we're just wasting
time speculating.
There are recent mails talking about "months later", those
discussions are not, IMO, in scope and are significantly
distracting.
Stephen.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html