-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
David Woodhouse wrote:
What makes you suggest otherwise? Can you describe in detail the massive
changes to existing practice which you think the alternatives would need
us to make?
Do all the Qmail or Exim or Postfix or Exchange installations out there
support BATV or DKIM already? No? Thought so.
Oh, I forgot, your plan doesn't include practically everyone participating
in the scheme of choice, so a lot of otherwise necessary upgrade work can
of course be saved.
BTW, I'm both publishing and checking SPF, and I'm not using SRS myself,
still the system works for _me_, to the degree to which others have chosen
to participate. Massive changes to the world's existing practice were not
required.
Your formalistic style of argumentation just doesn't fit reality, it seems.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCyygywL7PKlBZWjsRAriOAKDXM4pGYXkyZCgBei33ISeqna+lLgCaAm9i
B8U88y7FdnOLbRb2XYZTX8w=
=c+S0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----