On Oct 30, 2007, at 6:12 PM, Jeff Macdonald wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 03:28:12PM -0700, Douglas Otis wrote:
The issue whether the i= identity has been validated in some
fashion can not be answered without some specific additional
assertion added to DKIM.
I'm really having trouble und
Arvel, thanks for your comments.
This improves readability significantly, and I'd like to incorporate it
in its entirety. Any objections?
-Jim
Arvel Hathcock wrote:
> Some minor suggestions:
>
> 1. Introduction
>
>Second and third paragraph potential rewrite:
>
>"However, the legacy of
We had put our DKIM/SSP work on the back burner until all this was more
settled. We had wrote a C/C++ DKIM/SSP library that pre-dated the
final DKIM changes with the 2nd body signature and other considerations.
I am wondering if there is an open source C/C++ library that is current
with the
Hector Santos wrote:
> I am wondering if there is an open source C/C++ library that is current
> with the latest DKIM/SSP technical specifications that I can analyze and
> work with to update our own library.
Cheating: I entered "dkim.org" in the location line of my browser, went
down to "imp
Hi Hector,
At 12:32 02-11-2007, Hector Santos wrote:
I am wondering if there is an open source C/C++ library that is
current with the latest DKIM/SSP technical specifications that I can
analyze and work with to update our own library.
See dkim-milter.
Regards,
-sm
_
More good comments. See comments inline:
Arvel Hathcock wrote:
> Some additional suggestions:
>
> 2. Language and Terminology
>
> One thing that was a clear take-away form the recent Interop
> event was that we must have a clear definition of "signing identity".
> Please consider adding t
