ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Remainder of last jabber not covered + new issue

2006-06-05 10:02:41
Douglas Otis wrote:

On Jun 5, 2006, at 9:14 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:

Now 1287.


Wait a minute, hasn't this been discussed ad nauseum with the clear
consensus to leave this text in?


Do you have a reference to this discussion? The concern raised is about the normative language in the -base draft regarding the removal of signatures.

Yes, we've definitely had this conversation before.

It seems a growing portion of email content might become invalid signatures.

I've seen exactly the opposite.

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