Re: Broken DomainKey .. or dead project?

["Erik A. Espinoza" <erik.espinoza@gmail.com>]

Thanks for the info. Very interesting. The QmailToaster rpm
distribution does include SpamAssassin already.

Sounds like the best bet would be to move incoming verification to
SpamAssassin and use qmail-dk for outgoing signing only.

Nice info here Matt.

Erik

On 4/4/07, Matt Simpson <net-qmlist@jmatt.net> wrote:
> Sometime last year, I asked some questions on this list about
> Domainkeys and qmail-dk, and Russ Nelson responded.  His response
> indicated that he might have been considering further development of
> qmail-dk, but I'm not sure what he's done with it since then.  That
> dialog can be seen in the list archives at
>
> http://marc.info/?l=qmail&m=114805494228980&w=2
>
> Based on Russ's responses (and questions), and remarks from others,
> I decided that a qmail-queue frontend, like qmail-dk, was probably
> not the appropriate place for domainkeys verification.  It's not
> really feasible to make a "yes/no" decision about accepting mail
> based solely on domainkey signature. The best you could do would be
> to have it provide information to be used by some more intelligent
> spam filter which would use that as one of many factors to make a
> judgment.  And if you're going to use some more intelligent spam
> filter, you might as well use one like spamassassin, which has
> domainkey support in it already, eliminating the need for
> verification by qmail-dk.
>
> I still think qmail-dk is handy for signing outgoing messages.  One
> of the limitations mentioned, not being able to specify which headers
> are included, has been fixed with a version of qmail-dk provided by
> Richard Lyons
>
> http://test.frob.com.au/qmail/patches/qmail-1.03-dk-0.54-exclude.patch
>
> There are still some issues with qmail-dk.  One that I recently
> encountered was not being able to sign bounce messages.  I still
> haven't resolved that one.