On Wed 09/Apr/2025 06:15:16 +0200 Dave Crocker wrote:
On 4/8/2025 5:43 AM, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
Although different, DKIM2 shares a huge amount of concepts developed
alongside DKIM, from the tag=value specification, to underscored domains and
key distribution, to hashing and signing. The la
Alessandro Vesely wrote in
<8e69637f-508c-49e6-9029-5bacdb799...@tana.it>:
|On Sun 06/Apr/2025 20:56:35 +0200 Dave Crocker wrote:
|> The goals for the new effort are for a very different set of services. \
|> There
|> is nothing wrong with wanting those services, but really, they are \
|> n
On 7 Apr 2025, at 13:11, Dave Crocker wrote:
Bron,
On 4/7/2025 10:53 AM, Bron Gondwana wrote:
I buy this argument. You're quite correct, DKIM doesn't have any
actual problems. It's perfect. It does exactly what it's specified
to do.
DKIM is also insufficient for the purpose for which it's
On 4/9/2025 6:20 AM, Richard Clayton wrote:
If so then prioritising discussion of the "overview" document should, in
my view, be put on hold because there's little point in providing an
overview of something that might turn out to be impossible to get
working (and inter-working), so we should be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In message <18bd7915-ff09-48d8-a542-4626580a7...@dcrocker.net>, Dave
Crocker writes
>My reading of the charter concludes that the charter already specifies
>explicitly what issues will be addressed.
>
>What it leaves open -- albeit with guidance abo
