Re: AlwaysSignHeaders results in "fail"

From: Murray S. Kucherawy <>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 15:56:20 -0700 (PDT)

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012, wrote:
> If you say "better go for the short list" then I will use the short list
> from the new RFC. Would there be anything else I have to change if I
> should use the short list or is SignHeaders the only option I have to
> change to make 2.0.1 aware of the new RFC?

Off the top of my head, that's it. The rest of the compliance changes
you'd need to make are in the code logic, which means you should probably
just upgrade if you care to be precise.

Received on Mon Jun 18 2012 - 22:56:37 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Mon Oct 29 2012 - 23:20:40 PST