On 03/24/2010 02:52 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Thomas [mailto:mike(_at_)mtcc(_dot_)com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 2:48 PM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: mail-vet-discuss(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [mail-vet-discuss] Proposed "header.b" tag for DKIM
signatures
Again, I'm not disputing the theoretical problem -- after all as you
mention I
pointed it out ages ago :) All I'm really asking is whether this is
actually
causing heartburn for people using auth-res. Like, is there some
automatons
that depend on auth-res that are puking because of the situations you
describe
above?
No, there's no great urgency here. I'm being pre-emptive based on some other
related efforts, and this has generally not been seen (so far) to be a
heavyweight change or anything controversial.
Ok. Maybe it would be good to just find out how auth-res is holding up,
problems, implementation
reports, etc, and roll this up in a more general purpose update? I know you
know what a pain the
process is :)
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html