> Here's my guess. I don't think Arvel is opposed. As an implementor he
> just wants to know what code to write.
That's right. I'm not opposed. I have the occasional questions for my
own learning (sorry) and Ned has answered them well in this case. I
agree that implementation requirements make sense on both ends as Ned
said previously.
--
Arvel
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html