Re: [ietf-dkim] 1365 yes/no

ietf-dkim

Re: [ietf-dkim] 1365 yes/no

2007-03-02 10:37:55


So far I've seen about two to one in favour of eliminating
this requirement so I guess Mike should not include it in
the next rev.

Not that many opinions though (12, incl one offlist) so if
a storm of people show up saying that's wrong it can go
back in where we're making the changes after WGLC.

Stephen.
_______________________________________________

NOTE WELL: This list operates according tohttp://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

[More with this subject...]

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: [ietf-dkim] 1365 yes/no, Hector Santos Re: [ietf-dkim] 1365 yes/no, Steve Atkins Re: [ietf-dkim] 1365 yes/no, Hector Santos Re: [ietf-dkim] 1365 yes/no, Charles Lindsey Re: [ietf-dkim] 1365 yes/no, Jeff Macdonald Re: [ietf-dkim] 1365 yes/no, Stephen Farrell <= RE: [ietf-dkim] 1365 yes/no, Hallam-Baker, Phillip Re: [ietf-dkim] 1365 yes/no, Damon

Previous by Date:	RE: Comment on RE: [ietf-dkim] 1365 yes/no, Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Next by Date:	Re: [ietf-dkim] Today's jabber notes..., Stephen Farrell
Previous by Thread:	Re: [ietf-dkim] 1365 yes/no, Jeff Macdonald
Next by Thread:	RE: [ietf-dkim] 1365 yes/no, Hallam-Baker, Phillip
Indexes:	[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]