At 12:34 PM +0100 3/7/07, Frank Ellermann wrote:
But it also uses the 4234 <LWSP> in (2.4), sigh. It's IMO a
bit late to address your concern, but maybe Eric could still
do a s/LWSP/[FWS]/g in AUTH48 eliminating LWSP everywhere (?)
Absolutely not. This is a technical change. If we tried that, the
document would have to go through IESG review again.
--Paul Hoffman, Director
--Domain Assurance Council
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
