On Sat, 21 Feb 2009, SM wrote: > Given the scope of Dave's proposal, I'm still not comfortable with it > as an erratum. I choose Eliot's proposal (d).
(d) included a "with the following changes" provision. What changes are you suggesting (or supporting)? _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
