W B Hacker wrote:
>> I wouldn't say this is "critical", but I feel that it is "important"
>> that DKIM is fully finished and included in the latest stable release
>> and in default distribution packages, without people having to roll
>> their own. A modern MUA should have this functionality by default.
>
> S'pose DKM/DKIM wouldn't do as much damage if it *WERE* restricted to
> use in MUA's ...
>
> ... but I suspect you meant 'MTA' vice 'MUA', and if so, it is an
> invented-in-Redmond sort of 'functionality' of which you speak:
Correct.
> - increase the workload on the sending box to compute and add a crypted sig
>
> - increase the workload on the receiving box to check the sender's
> stated usage (lookup), then validate each specific message,
>
> - use a smidgen more bandwidth to move the traffic....
>
> - use a smidgen more space to store it
>
> - And:
>
> ... fail to accomplish anything with any certainty at the end of all the
> masturbation...
It achieves exactly what it was designed to achieve.
> You were joking about such nonsense being a 'default', yah?
Regardless of your personal opinion as to the usefulness of DKIM, you
should at least be able to recognise that the industry is moving towards
using it and that Exim needs to implement it in order to continue being
considered a modern mta.
--
Mike Cardwell
(
https://secure.grepular.com/) (
http://perlcv.com/)
