On Wednesday 19 July 2006 21:23, John L wrote:
If you want your signatures to work, be sure the message you're signing is
as squeaky clean 2822 compliant as possible so as to give relay MTAs as
little incentive as possible to make helpful modifications. I realize
that we have existing software and we can't always upgrade it, but if we
want something that's designed to be resilient in the face of every known
hostile MTA, we already have S/MIME and this is not it. The existing
simple canonicalization covers a large and useful set of relay MTA
behavior, so I think we should declare victory and stop.
I have a general DKIM requirements question...
I have seen a combination of references to 822 and 2822 in recent discussions
on the list. Is the requirement that DKIM support both 822/2822 content (822
being the current standard) or is the intent that DKIM is just required to
support 2822 content?
I don't recall much discussion on this point.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html