> So it could be an alias entry in SSP then. One is called "I sign all"
> and the other is called "I don't send". They both set the same bit.
>
> Besidewhich wont a UI hide the nitty gritty of what bits are set
> where?
Hadn't thought of that along those lines. Yeah, that could work and I'm
perfectly happy to sign on to this as a solution.
My reservation (which I can get beyond) comes from experiences where
I've made mistakes as a programmer like this: I change bit X because
result Y is no longer required but forgot that bit X was also employed
in a round-about way to achieve result Z and so now result Z doesn't
work. I'm not sure that experience applies here but as a general rule I
think it's best that whenever discrete units of desirable functionality
can be defined they should have their own on/off mechanism.
--
Arvel
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html