Ned Freed wrote:
Of course this doesn't mean we couldn't just have SHA-256 as the only MUST. I
think that's a bad idea, but it would probably fly. But you appear to be
arguing that there should be no mandatory to implement at all.
I could live with a mandatory SHA-256, although Mike Thomas has raised a
real concern about the robustness of the available code base.
Eliot
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html