or the response. So just implementing
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/specs/draft-allman-dkim-base-00-10dc.txt
without SSP is considered a valid DKIM implementation?
> Thanks for the response. So just implementing
> http://mipassoc.org/dkim/specs/draft-allman-dkim-base-00-10dc.txt
> without SSP is considered a valid DKIM implementation?
As I recall, people have had some debate about this exact point.
I believe, quite strongly, that implementing the core signature mechanism
definitely qualifies as implementing DKIM.
This does not mean that SSP -- or any other bit of additional DKIM technology
that gets developed -- is unimportant, ill-advised, or any such negative.
(However I believe there is general agreement that the core is more stable than
ssp, where 'stable' means that changes to the respective specs are likely to
entail a smaller percentage of code, data, or operations changes.)
Anyhow, my own view is that it merely that the signature mechanism, itself, is
sufficiently useful to warrant being called DKIM.
But, of course, that's merely my own view.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>
_______________________________________________
ietf-dkim mailing list
http://dkim.org