On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 08:49:44AM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote: > > > Jeff Macdonald wrote: > >The standard isn't finalized yet, correct? So how can we have vendors > >say they have conforming implementations? > > > >I'm talking DKIM, not DK. > > The version of DKIM that was submitted to the IETF was the result of an > extensive, multi-vendor specification and development effort. In effect, > the IETF effort is for the purpose of creating version FOUR of DomainKeys. > By this measure, version THREE is first one called DKIM. > > Please take a look at <http://mipassoc.org/dkim> for more information. >
Dave, Thanks for the response. So just implementing http://mipassoc.org/dkim/specs/draft-allman-dkim-base-00-10dc.txt without SSP is considered a valid DKIM implementation? -- :: Jeff Macdonald | Principal Engineer, Messaging Technologies :: e-Dialog | [EMAIL PROTECTED] :: 131 Hartwell Ave. | Lexington, MA 02421 :: v: 781-372-1922 | f: 781-863-8118 :: www.e-dialog.com _______________________________________________ ietf-dkim mailing list http://dkim.org
