John Levine wrote:
If you think these are silly, I wouldn't disagree, but I don't see any
reason that some of them are sillier than others.
Because none of those examples are specifically called out in RFC 4871,
while the one for which I am proposing the informative note is.
Why was the informative note that you added in -09, which also described
a signing practice not described in RFC 4871, not (to use your term) silly?
-Jim
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html