"John R. Levine" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Colorful, but those were not my/our words or sentiment. >> >> Once again, our use case is: > >Maybe, I'm dim, but I don't see any practical difference between what >you're saying and what I'm saying, other than perhaps that you have a far >more optimistic idea of what people will deploy that doesn't directly >benefit them. > >Like I said, "throw away anything that doesn't have our signature" has >some chance of broad adoption. Every extra word you add to the message >makes it less likely that people will do it. > I agree with this. I have yet to see any proposals for additions that didn't either add enough complexity to act as a barrier to deployment or alternately make it trivially possible to allow third parties to create messages that render discardable moot. Scott K _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
