On 23 May 2011, at 15:19, Hector Santos wrote:
Ian Eiloart wrote:
On 20 May 2011, at 05:24, Hector Santos wrote:
In this case, if this is enforced with a MUST, for a system that is
not 8BITMIME ready but is adding DKIM signing support, to remain
compliant it is far more feasible to add a rule to a DKIM signing
component:
If mail is 8bit then SKIP signing.
But why skip? Usually the message won't be downgraded. And even if they
are, usually a broken signature will cause no harm.
Thats the problem - define "usually" and also define "no harm."
Well, harm will only be done when someone incorrectly punishes a broken
signature. They should not do that, so the damage is actually done by the
recipient, not by the downgrading.
--
Ian Eiloart
Postmaster, University of Sussex
+44 (0) 1273 87-3148
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html