On 26/01/2009 06:48, "John Levine" <johnl(_at_)iecc(_dot_)com> wrote:
In article <497DAAF9(_dot_)4000304(_at_)att(_dot_)com> you write:
I strongly support working on a 4871bis >>and<< moving DKIMbase forward
to Draft Standard as part of that.
Same here. I don't feel strongly about errata vs. 4871bis, so I have
a practical preference for whatever will get it through the IESG and
published as expeditiously as possible.
+1
Also, +1 to Suresh's suggestion of a use cases document.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html