Re: [ietf-dkim] Revised proposal for specifying syntax and semantics fo

At 9:16 AM -0700 4/4/06, Michael Thomas wrote:
> I have no idea why this merits even a SHOULD let alone a REQUIRED.
For interoperability. The current document says that it does not say 
what multiple signatures mean, nor does it give a standard way for a 
signer to attach multiple signatures to a message.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html