--- Earl Hood <earl(_at_)earlhood(_dot_)com> wrote:
On July 17, 2005 at 15:27, domainkeys-feedbackbase02(_at_)yahoo(_dot_)com
wrote:
Do you want to advocate one of these mechanisms in conjunction with DKIM?
This sounds like (to me): "We already have developed code that does
simple and nowsp and we do not want to take the cost to change it."
Sorry if I am being short.
Being short is fine. Presuming motives of others, is not.
For the record, DK has gone through three public iterations thus far and DKIM
is a further variant, thus four revisions in total, each requiring code changes
- some of them substantial.
The track record - which is readily available in various public source
repositories - is that the spec has evolved as we understand the problem better
and the code merely follows the spec.
I'm sorry that you think my motive is to avoid changing code, but I hope the
history shows that not to be the case.
Mark.