Barry Leiba wrote:
>> DKIM is too complicated as it is, and it strikes me as an extremely poor
>> idea to add yet more cruft to work around perverse situations that are as
>> yet (and probably always) entirely hypothetical.
>
> I don't understand what "cruft" you think I'm talking about. Nothing
> in my message needs anything added to DKIM, and no one is suggesting
> removing anything from DKIM that will invalidate what my message said.
Anybody who says that "DKIM is too complicated" has no perspective
on internet protocols. SMTP, SIP, IKEv1 qualify as "too complicated".
Would that all internet protocols were as "complicated" as DKIM.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
