Ian Eiloart <iane(_at_)sussex(_dot_)ac(_dot_)uk> wrote:
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.
In the real world signature reliability matters. If a domain signs mail as a
rule then an absent or broken signature will be treated as suspicious.
Scott K
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html