Mircea Purdea wrote:
Stephen Farrell wrote:
I guess my concern would be that it might encourage people not to
update their code to be RFC compliant.
That might be so, but on the other hand, I think that before commiting
to a RFC, live testing of draft implementations SHOULD be done, and
currently, given the v= situation, this is nigh impossible...
Well, I just went and implemented -01 yesterday and I'm not having a
problem supporting
the previous versions. We may yet have a situation where we can't do
that, but thus far
we haven't. Considering that the draft seems to be converging, I'd say
that waiting for
it to track rfc's seems like a reasonable thing to do.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html