On Thursday March 8 2007 20:21, Michael Thomas wrote:
What would actually be better here, IMO, is to find out _how_ this
happened. That is, is this a pathological case for a DNS server we
ought to care about. If this just a random one off misconfiguration,
I'm not sure what the point is for introducing more text with its
inherent potential of itself being misconstrued...
For the curious:
s1024._domainkey.123greetings.com
(they are probably unaware of the issue)
From the DKIM implementor's point of view, a relevant question is:
should a verifier be liberal and accept the key, or must it be rejected
as syntactically invalid.
Mark
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html