--On 5 October 2009 13:36:53 +0800 W B Hacker <wbh@???> wrote:
> Christian Balzer wrote:
>> On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 02:37:15 +0800 W B Hacker wrote:
>>> .. there is nothing remotely resembling the Qmail saga here...
>>>
>> While that is certainly true, the lack of fully native DKIM support (no
>> patching, binary packages from the distro of your choice) is starting to
>> hurt.
>> Lets not repeat the discussion about pro and cons of DKIM, this is a
>> question of having an easy and fully supported way to offer DKIM for
>> those who want it or have a political (managerial) need to implement it.
>>
>> The last official word about this from Tom was on March 30th IIRC and
>> since then nothing about it and Exim 4.70.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Christian
>
> 4.69 is not the barrier.
>
> WITH_DKIM =
>
> .. is already in the Makefile.
yes, but libdkim isn't. The docs refer to
<
http://duncanthrax.net/exim-experimental/libdkim-1.0.15-tk.tar.gz> two
more recent versions are available there, but not easily discoverable, and
I don't see documentation about that fact.
Tom said about 4.70 that the DKIM implementation is stand-alone (library
included in Exim bundle, no additional dependencies), and the new library
supports some non-POSIX platforms like Windows (I know). On the other hand,
support for domainkeys is dropped - not that I think that's a great loss.
>
> As to 'binary' and 'distro' ISTR the tools to make the result of
> compilation into an RPM or similar 'package' are free, plentiful, and
> not hard to utilize.
>
> If it was a *Pony* you wanted 'compiled', OTOH .. 'wishing' is probably
> safer.
>
> ;-)
>
>
> Bill
--
Ian Eiloart
IT Services, University of Sussex
01273-873148 x3148
For new support requests, see
http://www.sussex.ac.uk/its/help/
