On Saturday, April 02, 2011 02:49:49 PM Michael Thomas wrote:
Dave CROCKER wrote:
The distinction that needs to be made is between formally-specified
output vs. implementation-specific access to DKIM internals.
i= was never intended to be "DKIM internals". That's why the entire gambit
to make d= the only show in town sucked.
+1.
I don't particularly agree with the idea that the work of the working group is
'done', but it does seem that we'd be better off if we stopped 'improving'
things sooner rather than later.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html