Sorry I missed it, elementary school graduation took precedence. >1294: draft-ietf-dkim-base-02 //i= parameter conflict >Only Doug wants this, but no one else agrees. Doug says that John >Levine supports it, so we'll check that on the mailing list. As it >stands, NO CHANGE will be made for this unless there is other support. >1294: CLOSE with no change... pending confirmation on mailing list.
No, that was 1292. >1296: [EMAIL PROTECTED] vs. [EMAIL PROTECTED] >This is John Levine's version of what basically is the same as 1292. >Let's see if John likes the answer to 1292 for this too. >1296: CLOSE, see resolution for 1292 -- subject to confirmation with JohnL. I don't see the point of a flag that will always be set the same way, but I can live with it. R's from Marrakech, John _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
