On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, william(at)elan.net wrote:
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
2. If what I fear about features that went into merged solution are true,
I doubt I'd support it. [...]
Such as?
No (optional) header copying, signature not surviving data additions,
only support for retrieving public key and not having it with message
so signature could at least be verified offline when necessary, plus
putting large public key data in dns is questinable (dns is good for small
data parts) as well as use of TXT instead of specialied dns record
(though not being hard core dns guru, last part I could leave with,
few others of above as well, but not all of it).
Nearly all of those are addressed in the DKIM spec as it exists today.
Something being "questionable" is subjective though.