----- Original Message -----
From: "Barry Leiba" <leiba(_at_)watson(_dot_)ibm(_dot_)com>
If you have not yet said that you support the change, please post here
and say that you DO support the change, that you DO NOT support the
change, or that you DON'T CARE.
In case it was not recorded, I think the BodyHash 1193 concept will be a
significant improvement to DKIM and thus I support it be added to the DKIM
base proposal.
The key point is, as Mike makes clear, whether the
advantages of this are worth the incompatibility that it causes.
We already have a compatibility problem Barry, with last months introduction
of the
"relaxed" canocalization method to this still unstable proposal. It broke
all older verifiers. Everyone had to change their codes to support it.
We will definitely have a more greater set of benefits with this bodyhash
proposal. I see no negatives whatsoever thus I didn't agree with Mikes
plus/minus itemized list.
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html