Ned Freed wrote: > Of course this doesn't mean we couldn't just have SHA-256 as the only MUST. I > think that's a bad idea, but it would probably fly. But you appear to be > arguing that there should be no mandatory to implement at all. > > I could live with a mandatory SHA-256, although Mike Thomas has raised a real concern about the robustness of the available code base.
Eliot _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
