>> My recollection is that every issue raised, by anyone, got considered. > > Well, you kept claiming that we couldn't possibly anticipate the ways in > which the DKIM protocol would be used, therefore there was no > justification for the WG to change DKIM significantly from its original > design. 1. I did not say anything like what you are stating. Please read more carefully. 2. I am but one voice. It means little what I say. 3. What DOES matter is that a) there was discussion, and b) you failed to obtain group support. THESE mean quite a lot. You continue to confuse your not getting what you want with a group's failing to do due diligence. They are quite different. The critical concept that you seem to make a point of missing is called "rough consensus". d/ _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf