On Thursday 20 July 2006 11:51, Dave Crocker wrote:
Barry Leiba wrote:
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 believe there are two parts to the answer to that:
1. We refer to RFC 282x, as the current standard, and that's what we're
aiming to support.
2. We're trying, to the extent we reasonably can, to deal with most of
what's actually out there, ...
Does anyone think that's not the right answer?
I think your language describes things quite nicely.
I am pretty sure that DKIM does not have anything that cares about 822 vs.
2822. That is, it works for both.
So I have tended to view the dual-reference approach as a means of
communicating to folks that they do not have to worry about old-vs-new
specifications for message syntax/semantics.
d/
OK. I may have mis-remembered, but I thought that one aspect of the naked CR
discussion (which a spun this thread off of) was that a naked CR is allowed
by 822, but not 2822. So I think there is something that cares.
Also, I think what you are saying is different than what Barry is saying. To
paraphrase:
Barry - Design requirement is to support 2822, but we will try to deal with
what is out there are much as we reasonably can (including 822).
Dave - Design requirement is to support 2822 and there aren't any 822/2822
differences that matter, so by supporting 2822, we also support 822.
I think we need to have clarity on this point and it doesn't seem to me that
we have it at this time.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html