[ietf-dkim] 822/2822 or just 2822

[Eliot Lear]

Douglas Otis wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-07-23 at 11:53 -0700, ned+dkim at mauve.mrochek.com wrote:
>   
> Striving to allow the message to be verified at the MUA increases the
> possible success of DKIM in offering the desired assurance.  While there
> may be problems in some cases, many of these cases could be avoidable.
> Signing at the MUA offers less value and will likely see a higher level
> of failure.  There are many reasons to caution about signing at the MUA.
>   

I see nothing wrong with this, so long as caveats are explained
(anti-virus checks, etc), and more seriously when it comes to signing. 
One example would be a signature that says "this email brought to you by..."

Eliot