>>> 3) Philosophical conflictive parenthetical sentence:
>>> >
>>> > (This can also be taken as a demonstration that DKIM is not designed
>>> > to support author validation.)
>> Yeh, that's the only part I agree on (though not with the reasoning
>> that follows). I'm ambivalent about having that parenthetical
>> statement in there. I'd like to see some consensus about whether to
>> leave it or keep it.
>
> +1 for leaving it, it is just distracting in that context.
Clarifying an error I made in the original message: it should say
"I'd like to see some consensus about whether to REMOVE it or keep
it." And it looks like Alessandro is on the side of removing
("leaving") it.
Sorry for the confusing typo.
Barry
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
