Mark Delany wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 11:06:35AM -0800, Jim Fenton allegedly wrote:
>
>
>> I don't recall anyone suggesting that we require signers to do multiple
>> signatures (at least, I wasn't suggesting that). In any case, I agree
>> with your statement.
>>
>
> But surely at so
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 11:05:33AM -0800, Jim Fenton allegedly wrote:
> Mark Delany wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 28, 2006 at 11:06:35AM -0800, Jim Fenton allegedly wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I don't recall anyone suggesting that we require signers to do multiple
> >> signatures (at least, I wasn't suggesting
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
Just so you know the current cisco.com DKIM record results in
342bytes message data (do "dig txt
nebraska._domainkey.cisco.com") and security of this key is
may not be sufficient and many will probably use 2k ones in
the future. The original pac
