Re: DKIM: c=simple is aspirational

> >  > We already have four of those; we don't need a fifth.
> >  Do you want to advocate one of these mechanisms in conjunction with
> >  DKIM?
>  No, I want to leave them to do what they are good and and not try to have
>  DKIM
>  solve every problem with message integrity out there.


Ned and Mark,

I am not understanding what specific, technical change to the current spec is 
being suggested.


  d/
  ---
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  +1.408.246.8253
  dcrocker  a t ...
  WE'VE MOVED to:  www.bbiw.net