But if one doesn't agree with the specs, you are not going to get the wide
interoperability endorsement and adoption you presume people will follow.
And I mean, across the board, not the peer group.
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:02 AM, John Levine <johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com> wrote:
On the other hand, if you're sending mail to people you don't know, or
you're evaluating mail from people you don't know, it really would be
a good idea to do what the spec says. In the particular case of l=, I
doubt that Steve and I are the only people who think its risk vastly
outweighs its potential utility, so if you want to maximize the odds
that recipients will accept your signatures, don't use it.
R's from the Axis of Interoperatbility,
John
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
--
hls
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html