My (Windows) implementation uses OpenSSL. It's a simple and handy
solution, but I can understand Hector's point about the unwillingness of
some to use open source libraries.
Regards,
Mircea
___
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipa
Stephen Farrell wrote:
I guess my concern would be that it might encourage people not to
update their code to be RFC compliant.
That might be so, but on the other hand, I think that before commiting
to a RFC, live testing of draft implementations SHOULD be done, and
currently, given the v=
While it may be sensible to start using v= now, or when an RFC
issues, or in some other way, I don't think that having a
different v= for each Internet-draft is a good idea really.
Perhaps you are expecting too much of each version of the I-D
in terms of stability/compatibility. These are workin
h value,
but unlike the previous proposal, (human) interpretation of this value
would require some familiarity with DKIM history.
I think that reaching a resolution on this issue before the next draft
release is imperative, and therefore hope that these proposals, at
least, help start a productiv
Two questions:
1. Is this to be considered the 'current' DKIM
specification? That is, should new implementations
follow this?
2. Shouldn't this new draft recommend a signature
'Version' value? The new bh/b hashing scheme does not
seem to be compatible with that in 'draft-allman-dkim-base-01'..
