On 10/14/10 3:30 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
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.
Isn't that what the IANA registry is there to prevent?
-Jim
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html