Justin Mason wrote:
Daryl C. W. O'Shea writes:
I thought you voted for letting Mail::DKIM spew whatever it wanted. :)
http://issues.apache.org/SpamAssassin/show_bug.cgi?id=5095#c3
Probably not a bad idea since it may encourage people to upgrade to
newer versions of Mail::DKIM that fix whatever is being spewed about.
well, it may be easy for us to not produce the invalid input
that's causing this one...
We can't fix a missing q tag, even though we know it should be q=dns,
since the header is itself signed.
Daryl
