Andrzej Adam Filip wrote: > Yes. IMHO you should create protocol capable to support other > "sender signature" types even if for long time only one > type is going to be supported.
Hmm... I think that's over-engineering. We can always change the protocol version number if we need to add this capability, but I don't really see the need. If we wanted to design strong privacy and authentication into the protocol, we'd use something like DTLS rather than reinventing the wheel. (But that goes against the low-bandwidth, low-overhead design goal.) Regards, David. _______________________________________________ NOTE: If there is a disclaimer or other legal boilerplate in the above message, it is NULL AND VOID. You may ignore it. Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.roaringpenguin.com MIMEDefang mailing list [email protected] http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
