On 3/27/2025 1:34 PM, Rob Sayre wrote:
I already explained the problem with your previous attempt, as have others.
No, you haven't.
> It has entirely different semantics from the other two, and not in contrast to them
The DKIM introduction has an eleven bullet-point illustrating the contrast.
Simply citing that that in that document does not provide a
rationale -- never-mind a compelling rationale -- for including
something about DKIM in the SMTP spec.
Again, the burden for developing a group agreement on inclusion
rests with you, not me.
More than one of has said it should not be included. Please point
to the support that you have so far accrued.
Your turn.
d/
-- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net bluesky: @dcrocker.bsky.social mast: @dcrocker@mastodon.social
-- last-call mailing list -- last-call@xxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to last-call-leave@xxxxxxxx
