Re: [ietf-dkim] Removing A-R headers



Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:

This still seems blatantly off-topic to me



+1

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
[ietf-dkim] list expanders (was Re: chained signatures, was l= summary), J.D. Falk Re: [ietf-dkim] list expanders (was Re: chained signatures, was l= summary), Michael Thomas Re: [ietf-dkim] list expanders (was Re: chained signatures, was l= summary), hector Re: [ietf-dkim] Removing A-R headers, Doug Otis Re: [ietf-dkim] Removing A-R headers, Michael Thomas Re: [ietf-dkim] Removing A-R headers, Murray S. Kucherawy Re: [ietf-dkim] Removing A-R headers, Dave CROCKER <= Re: [ietf-dkim] list expanders (was Re: chained signatures, was l= summary), J.D. Falk Re: [ietf-dkim] list expanders (was Re: chained signatures, was l= summary), Michael Thomas Re: [ietf-dkim] list expanders (was Re: chained signatures, was l= summary), Charles Lindsey Re: [ietf-dkim] list expanders (was Re: chained signatures, was l= summary), hector Re: [ietf-dkim] list expanders (was Re: chained signatures, was l= summary), J.D. Falk Re: [ietf-dkim] list expanders (was Re: chained signatures, was l= summary), SM Re: [ietf-dkim] list expanders (was Re: chained signatures, was l= summary), Charles Lindsey Re: [ietf-dkim] list expanders (was Re: chained signatures, was l= summary), SM Re: [ietf-dkim] list expanders (was Re: chained signatures, was l= summary), Charles Lindsey Re: [ietf-dkim] list expanders (was Re: chained signatures, was l= summary), hector