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
