----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephen Farrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> John Levine wrote: > >>> - If SSP is going to be something other than an >>> ignored add-on, then SSP-req/DKIM-base needs >>> to have language ... > > > > No way. > > I'd be with John there for purely process reasons - I'd like to > see base as an RFC and adding any normative SSP reference would > set that back by months at least. If there is a long run benefit to "doing it right" (not saying it is), "by months" would be inconsequential to the majority of "mankind" (Internet Email Industry - across the board). -- Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc. http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
