On 10/14/2010 6:30 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
> 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.
>
> Since this particular feature is apparently used in about .0007% of
> signatures, I can't get too worked up about breaking stuff.
>
I consider this to be a clarification on how to go about "removing g=".
Tony
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
