Stephen Farrell wrote: > I'm sure you're aware of this of course Actually I'm not, I missed the WGLC and read only about 10% of the 1800 unread DKIM mails some weeks ago. Base-05 was published last week, apparently reflecting WGLC issues.
Is that now intended to go to an IETF last call, or is it frozen waiting for whatever pops up in the SSP discussions ? > (In fact I this thread is well beyond its use-by date > already.) The proposed "compromise" that additional signatures are okay as long as the first signature is still valid was new. I'd say it's only consequent (instead of a "compromise"), but it's a step forward. We could note it as requirement: If signers don't munge mails they can sign everything they send without looking at any SSP. Frank _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
