Re: [ietf-dkim] Proposal: get rid of x=

Stephen Farrell wrote:
> Michael Thomas wrote:
> >   You could, but the semantic is more of a "I don't want this
> >   to be in transit after X". 
> I kind of like that description actually.
DKIM is about signatures, not transit.

Having a parameter in an RFC2822 header field attempt to specify something 
relevant to RFC2821 transit does not make sense and, at best, won't have any 
effect on transit.
d/
--

Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html