|
Re: dkim-base: _domainkey vs _dkim: msg#00516ietf.dkim
----- Original Message ----- From: "Eliot Lear" <lear@xxxxxxxxx> >> I know many don't like being so 1970ish, but to conserve DNS >> payload space, here is one example. Introducing this change >> when going to the binary key seems like a good choice. > I would be more interested in making the record easier > to parse, but even here I'm not too concerned. For humans, computers or both? -- Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc. http://www.santronics.com |
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| Previous by Date: | Re: dkim-base: _domainkey vs _dkim: 00516, Eliot Lear |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: dkim-base: _domainkey vs _dkim: 00516, Eliot Lear |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: dkim-base: _domainkey vs _dkimi: 00516, Eliot Lear |
| Next by Thread: | Re: dkim-base: _domainkey vs _dkim: 00516, Eliot Lear |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
| News | FAQ | advertise |