Jim Fenton wrote: > > Hmm -- back in IETF73 we seemed to agree (at least according to the > > email below) that guessing is, while probably not a good idea, > > possibly less bad than the alternative: > > > > http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/2008q4/010820.html > > Hmm, that's right; I had forgotten completely about that. However, > errata 1532 still shows up as "reported"; that means it still needs to > be acted on, right? I'm still not entirely clear on the process for > errata.
I had also completely forgotten that email, and found it only earlier today! (so my email last week wasn't quite right). The ball got dropped back in 2008, so yes, errata 1532 still needs to be acted on. Given that we now have the dkim-deployment document ready (which has the recommendations for e.g. DomainKeys deployers), we probably want to edit the errata text slightly (at the very least, add a pointer to dkim-deployment) before marking it as "verified". Best regards, Pasi _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
