----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Crocker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "John L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> John L wrote: > > It may sound like I'm channelling Dave here, but I don't want to put > > anything into a protocol that doesn't have a straightforward operational > > value, and I don't think that "stir it into the mix in spamassassin" is > > straightforward. > > It ain't me. It's a long-standing pattern of what gets deployed and used. > > So if there is any channeling, we are both doing it, on behalf of > the God of Successful Protocols... Yes, that's true, but we are here fixing things up. :-) This time around, lets be even more conservative and not pass on the future DKIM "Ignore failure" debt to our children. -- Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc. http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
