Charles Lindsey wrote:
On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 16:58:41 -0000, Stephen Farrell
<stephen(_dot_)farrell(_at_)cs(_dot_)tcd(_dot_)ie> wrote:
My concern is that people will tend not to implement stuff that is not
in the base standard. And any c14n has to be implemented at both ends in
order to be of any use.
Speaking for myself, I can almost guarantee you, from on my long held
mail product design philosophical and ethical standpoint, we are not
going to implement anything that will require us to a) touch the
original mail integrity of the message and b) more importantly anything
that will require us to 'bring apart' a MIME message for the purpose of
DKIM signing.
This pretty much a non-starter for us. DKIM is not going to be the
"thing" that will change our product design in screwing around with
original mail integrity. The exception is any CR/LF conversion on
original submissions, but in principle passthrus will never will never
be touched, altered or whatever any in shape or form and I hope others
don't begin get into this dangerous game as well. I have confident this
is not going to happen.
Please excuse me for asking this, but are you attempting to develop a
"total product solution" with far reaching change requirements across
the board or a backend protocol that fits with the current framework as
best it can, yet offers the highest adoption potential?
---
HLS
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html