----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Thomas" <mike(_at_)mtcc(_dot_)com>
To: "Tony Hansen" <tony(_at_)att(_dot_)com>
Tony Hansen wrote:
What kinds of failures have you been seeing? Any thoughts on making
relaxed better?
The failures we've been seeing are all related to the naked CR problem.
If we made relaxed also canonicalize CR or LF as CRLF, it would certainly
help, and not have the uncertainty of whether forcing the actual body to
be 2822 compliant will be harmful.
It shouldn't be an issue forcing 2822 with original feed signings which are
those with no HOPs (No Received: lines, or 1 if its your SMTP receiver).
The only issue I can see is a MUA with an embedded or 3rd party DKIM hook.
But with a DKIM required for RFC 2822 minimum support, that shouldn't cause
an issue. In addition, the MSA may not have to sign again with such
DKIM-aware MUAs.
--
Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc.
http://www.santronics.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html