Barry Leiba wrote:
How does this address my concern? This looks like my current receiver
would fail with the new signature format. That's not backward
compatable.
All verifiers already have to change, to support SHA-256.
But that still doesn't address my concern. It's not backward compatible.
It would be nice if the proponents of this change addressed my other
concerns that this proposal doesn't actually deliver what they think it's
delivering.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html