Ian Eiloart wrote: > *snip* >>> >>> yes, but libdkim isn't. >> >> But it is, and has been for a long time. > > I should clarify: libdkim isn't distributed with exim 4.69.
Neither is openssl, which DKIM also needs. Can't expect to ship *everything* with Exim. > It is > intended that it will be distributed with exim 4.70, and the library > distributed with 4.70 is intended to have no additional dependencies. That is commendable, and I applaud it - but not absolutely necessary, as it is maintained by others in any case: http://dkim.org/ Note on the 'deployment' page that EXIM's status is listed as 'production'. > All of that will make it easier to compile Exim with DKIM. Perhaps not > very much benefit for you and other FreeBSD users. > I can't imagine it is actually any harder to compile as-at 4.69 on Linux than it is on *BSD. Wot? One extra character for 'gmake' instead of 'make'? > So, there's some DKIM benefit to be had from doing a release, there are > other changes in 4.70, too, I think. > > And, there are some other, perhaps more important benefits: > > a) it shows that we're still alive > b) it gives a chance to ensure that our release process is still > functional. > All good stuff, and gratefully awaited. But avoidance of under 3 minutes of wall-clock time: 132.098u 16.765s 2:44.16 90.6% 6434+1014k 0+54io 1pf+0w (on a lowly VIA C6 CPU, yet) ... is hardly an excuse for 'pain' as ISTR the OP was claiming... BTW - one still has to gen the keys (scriptable) AND update the DNS (less so) so even a drop-in binary will never quite be 'turnkey'. Bill *snip* -- ## List details at http://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users ## Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ## Please use the Wiki with this list - http://wiki.exim.org/
