On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 14:09:29 -0800 Dave CROCKER <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
wrote:
but, ummm..., this really would be a functional enhancement, and so it
ought to
be discussed as part of the broader RFC revision effort, and certainly
under a
different thread, such as the Subject I'm using here...
Could we please let the ink dry on the one we have first?
Scott K
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html