On 05/09/2011 02:28 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: > Semantics first: we don't "vote" here. > > OK, that taken care of, it's a fair request, because there's been a > lot of discussion about it. We certainly have a good base of support > for deprecating "l=". > > So I'll ask it this way, starting a new thread for it: > I determine from discussion that there's enough support for > deprecating "l=" to qualify as rough consensus *if* there's not much > objection to it. It's the objection we need to gauge. Please post to > this thread if you object to deprecating "l=" in 4871bis. You may say > why you object, but please keep it brief, and let's not have a lot of > discussion of it here. If there's enough objection to derail > deprecation, we will leave it alone. >
I object. I've already asked whether there's been one documented case of ill effect in 5+ years. Crickets. Mike _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
