Dave Crocker wrote:
The use of SSP for signed messages creates a series of functional
interactions that SSP's use on unsigned messages does not.
Dave. Did you read rfc5016 before it was issued? It's not like this
was a closed opaque process.
And as far as I can tell, you alone seem to be carrying this torch
here. Changing what we agreed on with rfc5016 should require a very
high barrier. I see little if any support, let alone broad consensus
that we got it wrong.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html