Re: [ietf-dkim] is s= really needed?

At 11:30 PM +0100 7/1/06, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 3.6.1, "s=". Given that new tags can be added to key records
> without affecting compliant implementations, I don't see why this
> is needed now and suggest deleting it.
Agree, but could also be happy leaving it in for some odd extension.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html