Hi Murray,
At 23:48 30-09-10, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
But also important is discussion about some things we didn't expect
to see that may reveal themselves as the protocol has matured. For
example, a flawless DKIM implementation is still thwarted by the
injection of malformed header fields that are signed and later
corrected to spec by downstream MTAs. I believe that's useful
information for the community.
Yes. What is being determined through this report is whether people
can implement the specification correctly through interoperability testing.
Sure, but are those numbers permanent such that later readers will
find the same data, or should we describe each of the items that
came out of the Interop?
The level of detail for the report is left to the author. If we want
later readers to find the information, we could list the
interoperability issues in the document.
Regards,
-sm
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html