On Apr 20, 2006, at 3:55 PM, Michael Thomas wrote:
Jim Fenton wrote:
I'm not sure I want to start another discussion about the "t=" tag
like
we had about the "x=" tag, but I'm even less sure what to do with
t=. Do we want to base the format on that of t=?
Do statistics and forensics count for nothing these days?
From a prior conversation, I think the concern was whether to use
seconds from 1970 or the RFC2822 date time format. Standardizing on
a consistent format with that of the other headers being examined
would also permit a recipient to understand what the time stamp value
represents. The conversion routines are already be available.
The draft could recommend encompassing an evaluated Date header
within the signature, or providing for a human readable t= time stamp
when the Date header differs significantly.
-Doug
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html