Barry Leiba wrote:
However we have so far preserved the ability of a pre-IETF signer to
work with a post-IETF DKIM verifier. (So, Barry's statement is true,
> but I'm not sure it addressed the concern.
I believe my text, or a reasonable variant of it (modulo Paul's
concerns, for instance) preserves this ability. Do you disagree?
Perhaps, if you do, changing a SHOULD to a MUST would fix that?
This has never been in dispute. It's not backward compatible for the
receiver and that has *always* been my concern. That and the new
proposal doesn't do many of the things that its proposers claim. I'm still
waiting for the proposers to tell me why I'm wrong.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html