Hi Murray, At 23:48 30-09-10, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >But also important is discussion about some things we didn't expect >to see that may reveal themselves as the protocol has matured. For >example, a flawless DKIM implementation is still thwarted by the >injection of malformed header fields that are signed and later >corrected to spec by downstream MTAs. I believe that's useful >information for the community.
Yes. What is being determined through this report is whether people can implement the specification correctly through interoperability testing. >Sure, but are those numbers permanent such that later readers will >find the same data, or should we describe each of the items that >came out of the Interop? The level of detail for the report is left to the author. If we want later readers to find the information, we could list the interoperability issues in the document. Regards, -sm _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
