On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Al Iverson wrote:
I continue to be amazed at how utterly useless this document is, and
more so that people are being asked to break a sweat to issue it. The
most serious error is that it is a solution in search of a problem.
Is there *one* person/organization here who can say that this text
changed or affected their implementation in any way?
Yes. It hasn't affected our current implementation, but it will help
to guide me on implementation choices I make in the future.
I wouldn't be surprised to find that people on this list realize no
substantial benefit from the text changes proposed. But then, the
intended audience of the RFC and errata is much larger than the population
of this list.
So it may not help "us", but I could see how it might help "them".
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html