Re: [ietf-dkim] Format for t=

ietf-dkim

Re: [ietf-dkim] Format for t=

2006-04-20 18:53:50

*If* we're going to switch away from "seconds from 1970", we should use
the standardized time format described in RFC 3339: Date and Time on the
Internet: Timestamps. IMHO, using anything else would be irresponsible.

However, I don't think we have to switch.


I agree on all points.

                                Ned
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

[More with this subject...]

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: [ietf-dkim] Attempted text for x=, (continued) Re: [ietf-dkim] Attempted text for x=, Eliot Lear Re: [ietf-dkim] Attempted text for x= with DSN considerations, Douglas Otis RE: [ietf-dkim] Attempted text for x= with DSN considerations, Bill.Oxley Re: [ietf-dkim] Attempted text for x= with DSN considerations, Scott Kitterman Re: [ietf-dkim] Attempted text for x= with DSN considerations, Douglas Otis Re: [ietf-dkim] Attempted text for x=, Jim Fenton Re: [ietf-dkim] Attempted text for x=, Mark Delany Re: [ietf-dkim] Attempted text for x=, Michael Thomas Re: [ietf-dkim] Format for t=, Douglas Otis Re: [ietf-dkim] Format for t=, Tony Hansen Re: [ietf-dkim] Format for t=, ned+dkim <= Re: [ietf-dkim] Format for t=, Douglas Otis Re: [ietf-dkim] Format for t=, Arvel Hathcock RE: [ietf-dkim] Attempted text for x=, Bill.Oxley Re: [ietf-dkim] Attempted text for x=, Hector Santos Re: [ietf-dkim] Attempted text for x=, Douglas Otis

Previous by Date:	Re: [ietf-dkim] Format for t=, Tony Hansen
Next by Date:	Re: [ietf-dkim] dkim-base-01: 6.2 - DNS error, Douglas Otis
Previous by Thread:	Re: [ietf-dkim] Format for t=, Tony Hansen
Next by Thread:	Re: [ietf-dkim] Format for t=, Douglas Otis
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]