Well, I don't wish to be the pessimistic one. The changes only makes
us happy. So we passed the buck to external processes to make sure a
message is RFC5322/4409 ready. Doesn't change the fact that
something, someone has to do it and depending on the implementor, they
will be proactive about
On Jul 2, 2011, at 9:08 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
>> We have a week. Murray will be posting the update (-14) very soon.
>> Please review and comment by 11 July.
>
> The update has been posted. For your convenience:
>
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dkim-rfc4871bis/
>
> You
On Jul 2, 2011, at 9:58 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
>>> Please review and comment by 11 July.
>
> I would have liked to strip even more of the cruft out of 4871bis, but
> this is considerably better than the previous draft. Ship it.
Regardless of any remaining cruft, I'm glad to see this particu
