Re: [exim] DKIM, Mailing-lists and signing lengths

Graeme Fowler wrote:
> [speaking from the heart here, rather than the head]
>
> Bill
>
> The only response to your continuing war

'war'??

> against things which you feel
> deeply about is:

What I 'feel deeply about' is basically edible, drinkable, lovable, or bankable,
not necessarily in that order at any given point in time.

Trust me - smtp is 'none of the above'.

;-)

Pointing out that DKIM cannot always deliver what it purports to do?

Were it not so, an MLM in the delivery chain could be ignored and this thread
would not have begun.

Apologies for getting diverted to the more general issue of fitness.

>
> SMTP is fundamentally broken, so nobody should use it.
>

No - smtp is NOT 'fundamentally broken'.

Some of its *passengers* might be ill, but that doesn't break smtp.

> OK, so I didn't couch that ...

*snipped*

> should get your experience and skills involved in drafting updates to
> the various RFCs that define them (and that goes for anyone else wanting
> to jump on the tech-beating bandwagon).
>

RFC's - as with 'legislation' in most venues, notably US and EU - have far too
much added baggage as it is.

More need a housecleaning than need 'updates'.

*snip*

Bill