On 1/26/25 4:06 PM, Richard Clayton wrote:
In message <[email protected]>, Michael
Thomas <[email protected]> writes
> I personally think there should be some general divide and conquer
> with some of the goals on the documents front where easier things
> get done faster, harder ones slower, and if existing DKIM
> deployments can take advantage of that, that would be great (I'm
> thinking of the mailing list change annotations in particular). If
> you're zeroing in on "where possible", fine that could be softened,
> but the general idea of allowing existing DKIM deployments to take
> advantage of some or all of the new work where it can seems like
> Good Thing, to me.
you appear to be proposing that the WG should proceed on DKIM2 whilst in
parallel specifying complex changes to DKIM1. Who else do you think is
going to put in the cycles to implement the latter ?? (and please remind
me which software component you maintain).
I appear to be proposing nothing of the sort.
Do you realize that I wrote the first implementation of DKIM? Please
stop the condescending attitude. It's really unprofessional.
Mike
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
