On 10/14/2010 12:46 AM, Tony Hansen wrote:
Another potential option is to remove g= entirely:
I'd like to encourage our considering this strongly, for two reasons:
1. Pragmatic -- It's causing confusion and errors, while providing no
significant value-add.
2. Theoretical -- The feature recruits receivers to enforce what really are
matters of internal controls within the sender. It's one thing to recruit
receivers to help deal with attacks by outsiders, but quite another to burden
receivers with tasks that are within the signer's control.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html