ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] More on naked CR canonicalization

2006-07-14 18:17:21
Mark Delany wrote:

On Fri, Jul 14, 2006 at 04:55:23PM -0700, Michael Thomas allegedly wrote:
In a word, it's very, very real, and I believe that simple canonicalization will need to be changed to accommodate this. I just read through RFC 2822 and it has this

To work around broken mailers? I think not.

A good number of sites reject bare LFs. Also at least the standard
qmail inbound smtp rejects such email. I hope that other well
implemented receivers do the same.
Sendmail is broken? RFC 822 is "broken"?

I'm sorry, RFC2822 was published in 2001 --  a blink of the eye. To ignore
legacy is foolhardy, and is as foolhardy as relying on simple for headers
as an "aspiration".

Hopefully the trend to accept any goop is declining rather than
increasing. I expect my inbound SMTP receiver to only present me with
a valid SMTP stream.
Goop is timeless. We are here to patch a broken mail system, not to design it as if we could go back to first principles. Our experience is that the kind of
applications that generate this kind of mail are as common as dirt, and
they don't have any aspirations for email at all.

      Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html