Michael Thomas wrote:
Mark Delany wrote:
I don't think the "lateness" has anything to do with it since there are
bugs in either direction and no one even noticed until recently. It can
hardly be the case that it is breaking much to apply the fix.
Well, we have a deployment and changing this from the current sense would be
breaking messages that would have otherwise survived. That is what I
recently discovered. Do you have evidence to the contrary with your DKIM
deployment?
Sorry, Mike, but that particular line of argument isn't applicable here.> Hence,
it was pure academic exercise.
Working group specs are subject to semantic change up to the point of IESG
approval. Anyone deploying code based on a spec prior to that moment is taking a
well-advertised risk.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html