----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Farrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Hector Santos" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> And I further believe that the position as stated by Wietse > does represent the consensus of the WG, so I don't think we > should continue to argue the merits or otherwise of various > possibilities for DKIM-base signature semantics. [Correction to my previous response] Then are we going to change the DKIM-BASE document? It is not a mistake to suggest there is a statement or implication of the MUST has 2822.From mandate. Section 5.4 clearly goes into what headers should be considered for specific reasons. There is a strong reason for that. -- Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc. http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
