On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 22:24:54 -0000, Dave Crocker <dhc(_at_)dcrocker(_dot_)net>
wrote:
Charles Lindsey wrote:
How DKIM will work in an EAI context is not yet clear. For messages
which remain in an EAI (aka UTF8SMTP) environment throughout their
journey, DKIM should work OK, provided implemetors heed the advice in
dkim-base to maintain 8bit cleanliness in strings. But if a UTF8SMTP
message has to be downgraded by some MTA en route, then secondary
signing by that MTA is just not an option. ...
It occurs to me that this is probably not a DKIM topic at all. I don't
mean that it isn't relevant to DKIM, but rather that it is not
*specific* to DKIM.
This is an area where the work of hte DKIM WG and that of the EAI WG may
conflict. I think all that can be done is for both groups to be on the
lookout for such conflicts, and to avoid them where possible.
So in this group, it would be reasonable to point out "that feature might
cause problems for EAI - here is how you might avoid them", and on the EAI
group "this feature might cause difficulties if the message were to be
DKIM-signed - here is a way to get around it".
--
Charles H. Lindsey ---------At Home, doing my own thing------------------------
Tel: +44 161 436 6131
Web: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~chl
Email: chl(_at_)clerew(_dot_)man(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk Snail: 5 Clerewood Ave, CHEADLE, SK8 3JU, U.K.
PGP: 2C15F1A9 Fingerprint: 73 6D C2 51 93 A0 01 E7 65 E8 64 7E 14 A4 AB A5
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html