On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 1:36 PM, Michael Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > Al Iverson wrote: >> >> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Michael Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I continue to be amazed at how utterly useless this document is, and >>> more so that people are being asked to break a sweat to issue it. The >>> most serious error is that it is a solution in search of a problem. >>> >>> Is there *one* person/organization here who can say that this text >>> changed or affected their implementation in any way? >> >> Yes. It hasn't affected our current implementation, but it will help >> to guide me on implementation choices I make in the future. > > Please elaborate how. Especially valuable would be examples of where > your code would have not been interoperable before this errata, but > would conform in the future. Barring that, a list of any changes to > operational behavior would be nifty.
No thanks. Sadly, I must decline to try to keep up with your moving goal post. Regards, Al Iverson -- Al Iverson on Spam and Deliverability, see http://www.spamresource.com News, stats, info, and commentary on blacklists: http://www.dnsbl.com My personal website: http://www.aliverson.com -- Chicago, IL, USA _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
