But if one doesn't agree with the specs, you are not going to get the wide interoperability endorsement and adoption you presume people will follow. And I mean, across the board, not the peer group. On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 10:02 AM, John Levine <jo...@iecc.com> wrote:
> On the other hand, if you're sending mail to people you don't know, or > you're evaluating mail from people you don't know, it really would be > a good idea to do what the spec says. In the particular case of l=, I > doubt that Steve and I are the only people who think its risk vastly > outweighs its potential utility, so if you want to maximize the odds > that recipients will accept your signatures, don't use it. > > R's from the Axis of Interoperatbility, > John > > > > _______________________________________________ > NOTE WELL: This list operates according to > http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html > -- hls
_______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
