ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Last call comment: Changing the g= definition

2010-10-14 17:35:05
No, that doesn't solve the problem for all of the implementations
that are out there now that implement 4871. Removing g= is only going
to make the situation even worse because you've now taken away the
documentation.

I wouldn't be opposed to moving it to an appendix of deprecated features, 
if for nothing else to ensure that some future DKIM++ doesn't 
inadvertently reuse g= to mean something else.

Since this particular feature is apparently used in about .0007% of 
signatures, I can't get too worked up about breaking stuff.

Regards,
John Levine, johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet 
for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>