Larry M. Smith wrote in
:
|Sorry, I'm a bit late to the party. While I have attempted to follow
|the discussion, here are some initial thoughts after a bit of pondering.
| I might have missed if these were discussed elsewhere and I might very
|well be wrong in my understanding of how this
On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 2:47 PM Steffen Nurpmeso wrote:
> This only survives because DKIM specifies ~"one successful
> verification is enough". It is a shame given that other
> mailing-lists ensure the original==broken signature is removed or
> renamed, but not even a bug report can change the s
Steffen Nurpmeso wrote in
<20250416174856.ASXeYj5H@steffen%sdaoden.eu>:
|John Levine wrote in
| <20250416172847.8886ec4e0...@ary.qy>:
...
||We could except that the Resent-xx headers are not trace headers, even \
||though
||anything you might say about trace headers applies to them, too.
||
On Wed 16/Apr/2025 17:20:19 +0200 Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Sat, Apr 12, 2025 at 12:28 AM Dave Crocker wrote:
On 4/11/2025 12:56 PM, Richard Clayton wrote:
[...]
I agree we need to get the history right here. I don't necessarily agree
that this is fatal to adoption.
[...]
If a
