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

Paul Hoffman wrote:
> 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.
Do you consider this an adequate reply to all of the questions I asked?

                Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html