-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Thomas [mailto:mike(_at_)mtcc(_dot_)com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 11:06 AM
To: Murray S. Kucherawy
Cc: DKIM WG
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Extensions (was RE: Proposal: Removal of AUID (i=
tag/value))
Limiting new additions to the dkim header itself at least
would limit the problem of adding new semantics of a
signature header to exactly the entity doing the signing.
The alternative would be very squirrelly when you think
of the general case of multiple signers in the path.
That's a good perspective. I hadn't considered the idea of multiple
independent signers.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html