Michael Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If we ever move to a new signing algorithm that doesn't encrypt like RSA > does, it seems like that might be a worthwhile thing to do. As it > stands now, > we don't have the need so it would probably not do much more than add > confusion.
That's fine, but if we believe that in order to have an operational system you're going to need to be able to do signature message recovery in some way, I think that needs to be explicitly stated somewhere, not just left silent. -Ekr _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
