On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 10:01:03AM -0700, J.D. Falk wrote: > On 2007-03-12 16:51, Hector Santos wrote: > > >I tend to side with the high probability that blindly signing MAIL in a > >DKIM-BASE only manner (with no helper support, and I presume you are > >just against SSP, not other kind of helpers, like DAC or some other yet > >to be established reputation helper) > > Hmm, not sure who you're arguing with here -- can't be me, I'm not > against SSP. Never have been. I just don't think it's a good idea to > continue telling the world that DKIM isn't ready.
I don't think the 'world' understands that DKIM is just a building block. -- :: 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 _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
