> >Fine. But I've still not seen a compelling argument for x= that cannot > >be effectively achieved by revocation of the selector. > > > > > The same reason that you've tirelessly advocated that DK selectors > be backward compatible: that many sites only have a rather tenuous grip > on the manageability of their DNS entries for DKIM.
An interesting guess as to my motives, but no, that's not why I do that advocating. But I get you're answer. You're saying that x= is there solely because some people will have trouble removing a key when it's compromised. Mark. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
