Al Iverson wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Michael Thomas <mike(_at_)mtcc(_dot_)com>
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.
Please elaborate how. Especially valuable would be examples of where
your code would have not been interoperable before this errata, but
would conform in the future. Barring that, a list of any changes to
operational behavior would be nifty.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html