-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In message <d099eead-11aa-4bfd-8d55-1ce144c01...@mtcc.com>, Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> writes
>Two different code paths, two different places for screw ups and >maintenance. I'm with Murray that there is a lot of appeal to backward >compatibility. why would you want to maintain a codebase that handled both DKIM1 and DKIM2 ... you would have more than double the number of test cases to maintain (DKIM1 has a fair amount of cruft that no-one actually uses, so a DKIM2 library is going to be smaller and simpler) >This is hardly a controversial software development practice. nor is forking ... it's not as if DKIM1 libraries are under constant revision so that you would have to apply fixes in two places of course a DKIM2 library should have a compatible invocation interface to the fullest extent possible ... but that's as far as compatibility needs to go... or do you think MTAs have eschewed libraries for inline code ? - -- richard Richard Clayton Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1 iQA/AwUBZ+xmj2HfC/FfW545EQIxyQCfXL5ZBBa+w82T5Zl8EMwlr/4pqpEAniUQ 9Tc4rvhQLRFHhhxeLv3yJggh =1ckr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
