> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Thomas
> Please. I brought this issue up. It was not the *only* > objection, and I *did* bring up an alternate way to solve the > problem without breaking backward compatibility, at least > until the motivation morphed into something other than the > originally stated goal. Reading your original post I find only one argument against the proposal, that it is a change. I note that you also provide an alternative solution that does not involve a change. It provides some but not all of the advantages of the 1193 proposal but not all.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
