Ian Eiloart wrote:
>
*snip*
>>>
>>> yes, but libdkim isn't.
>>
>> But it is, and has been for a long time.
>
> I should clarify: libdkim isn't distributed with exim 4.69.
Neither is openssl, which DKIM also needs.
Can't expect to ship *everything* with Exim.
> It is
> intended that it will be distributed with exim 4.70, and the library
> distributed with 4.70 is intended to have no additional dependencies.
That is commendable, and I applaud it - but not absolutely necessary, as it is
maintained by others in any case:
http://dkim.org/
Note on the 'deployment' page that EXIM's status is listed as 'production'.
> All of that will make it easier to compile Exim with DKIM. Perhaps not
> very much benefit for you and other FreeBSD users.
>
I can't imagine it is actually any harder to compile as-at 4.69 on Linux than it
is on *BSD.
Wot?
One extra character for 'gmake' instead of 'make'?
> So, there's some DKIM benefit to be had from doing a release, there are
> other changes in 4.70, too, I think.
>
> And, there are some other, perhaps more important benefits:
>
> a) it shows that we're still alive
> b) it gives a chance to ensure that our release process is still
> functional.
>
All good stuff, and gratefully awaited.
But avoidance of under 3 minutes of wall-clock time:
132.098u 16.765s 2:44.16 90.6% 6434+1014k 0+54io 1pf+0w
(on a lowly VIA C6 CPU, yet)
... is hardly an excuse for 'pain' as ISTR the OP was claiming...
BTW - one still has to gen the keys (scriptable) AND update the DNS (less so) so
even a drop-in binary will never quite be 'turnkey'.
Bill
*snip*
