> Sometimes I wonder what the goal here is. Why not ask me?
> Looking into http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kucherawy-dkim-reporting > it reinvents RFC 3834 without referencing it, How? RFC3834 is a series of recommendations for a set of related scenarios, not a specific application. It would make a great entry for my References section though. > it has a reference to RFC 1894 obsoleted by RFC 3464 *five* years ago, Interesting then that IDNits doesn't mention that at all, nor does http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1894.txt show it as obsolete. > and still talks about ASP instead of ADSP. ADSP isn't a published draft yet. When it publishes, I'll update. > Using [FWS] in DNS records is also broken by design, unless the goal is > "experimental" havoc. I don't mind changing it to *WSP as the SSP draft has it if that's better. In any case, thanks so much for being encouraging rather than taking the easy passive-aggressive and condescending way out. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
