On 10/14/10 3:30 PM, John R. Levine wrote: >> No, that doesn't solve the problem for all of the implementations >> that are out there now that implement 4871. Removing g= is only going >> to make the situation even worse because you've now taken away the >> documentation. > I wouldn't be opposed to moving it to an appendix of deprecated features, > if for nothing else to ensure that some future DKIM++ doesn't > inadvertently reuse g= to mean something else.
Isn't that what the IANA registry is there to prevent? -Jim _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
