We are not holding up the dkim spec, we are wanting a datapoint to be kept in the draft-ietf-dkim-implementation-report On Oct 4, 2010, at 7:40 PM, J.D. Falk wrote:
> On Oct 4, 2010, at 5:06 PM, John R. Levine wrote: > >>> to Draft Standard. Everyone please review it, and post >>> comments/issues. Please also post here if you've reviewed it and think >>> it's ready to go. >> >> I have reviewed it, and it looks ready to go. > > +1 > > Regarding Hector's complaint, I think a separate usage report focused on > 1st/3rd party signing practices may be appropriate -- but I don't think it > makes sense to hold up the advancement of the DKIM base spec for that. > > > _______________________________________________ > NOTE WELL: This list operates according to > http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
