Michael Thomas wrote:
Scott Kitterman wrote:
I seem to have missed the discussion where anyone but you is suprised by
this. If one is going to distinguish between originator signatures and
others, then this requirement pretty obviously follows.
+1, and I had the dubious distinction of having to go through the thousands
of mail messages. I can't imagine that there is anything new under the sun
on this topic.
Well, I reviewed the archives for the period during which i= was added and
could not find discussion of it. So I'm glad to hear you've done a more
thorough review. This means that you can point me to the archives of the
working group consideration of the issue?
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to