Barry Leiba wrote:
So I'll ask it this way, starting a new thread for it:
I determine from discussion that there's enough support for
deprecating "l=" to qualify as rough consensus *if* there's not much
objection to it. �It's the objection we need to gauge. �Please post to
this thread if you object to deprecating "l=" in 4871bis. �You may say
why you object, but please keep it brief, and let's not have a lot of
discussion of it here. �If there's enough objection to derail
deprecation, we will leave it alone.
That was quick. I believe we already have enough objections to say
that we do NOT have rough consensus for deprecating l= at this time.
I'll close the issue in the tracker (issue #26), and we will leave it
as it is.
Of course, folks may, if it makes them feel good, continue to register
objections here.
:-D
But that still shouldn't mean the functional and technical
informations should not be clarified. Maybe the "two weeks or so" can
be used to do that?
To me, the basic issue is that "l=" consideration is not isolated to
itself - other factors such has what headers to sign, reducing message
content complexity, removing items that could be stripped for security
purposes (i.e. HTML), etc, all ideas that basically mean "Know Your
Target!" If we can describe it better, then maybe we can give the
readers the benefit of the doubt they may decide themselves its not
needed for their purpose and implementators a better idea how to
expose the option to operators.
--
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html