Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of John R.
Levine
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2011 6:44 AM
To: SM
Cc: DKIM List
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] MLM and C14N
Hi Hector,
At 15:20 14-05-2011, Hector Santos wrote:
Shouldn't the MLM I-D say something regarding C14N and CR/LF related
mutations?
No.
+1 to the No.
+1 to the No.
This is a software problem,
You mean the MLM who is ignorant of DKIM meta data for the past "40
years?"
not something that needs to be solved by creating a protocol extension.
Isn't that what you are doing in this MLM I-D, creating a DKIM
"protocol extension" for MLMs?
IMV, this MLM I-D is 100% about a MLM and VERIFIER mail integration
protocol inconsistency, i.e. software problems, in dictating whats MLM
and Verifier Software need to be considered and change to retrofit
DKIM and ADSP into a MLM and MLM related issues with verifiers.
IMV, the issue equally falls in the same MLM chaotic environment in
how there long legacy behavior and different ways it can break
transparent meta data we call DKIM. The extra <CRLF> preexisted DKIM
- we can tell these software to not do this or that for the sake of
DKIM, but is that realistic? I don't think so - the burden is on DKIM.
--
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html