Scott Kitterman wrote: > Yes. That helps. > > The two scripts provide a similar function, but python-dkim only does DKIM > signing/verification. It does not implement the policy component, so it's > dkimverify can't provide a complete equivalent of the one in dkimproxy. > > I do think their purposes are slightly different. The one provided for > python- > dkim is not just meant as a troubleshooting tool. I think it's meant to make > it easy to integrate DKIM verification into non-Python applications. > > While I'm not aware of any current users of this script (python-dkim is a new > library), I think it would be better not to rename it since any future > applications that made use of it would have to be patched when they would be > packaged for Debian.
That is exactly what I was thinking about as well. > Thomas, > > I would prefer if you rename the dkimproxy dkimverify since your upstream has > confirmed it's not a problem. What do you think? > > Scott K Yes, I'll rename it dkimproxy-verify and keep it in /usr/bin, if that is a satisfying solution for everyone. Jason, I can only suggest you to do the same in your upstream sources, as you will have the problem with some other distributions, that's quite inevitable. I'll be able to work on that issue tomorrow. Scott, are you able to upload yourself, or should I ask my usual sponsor (that might be busy)? Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
