Murray S. Kucherawy writes: > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 5:25 PM, John Bucy <[email protected]> wrote:
> > An mta could opt to send a message with unencoded utf8 headers (display > > name, subject, etc) to another peer advertising SMTPUTF8 even if none of > > the envelope were internationalized addresses. If the recipient then needed > > to relay the message on to a site that didn't support SMTPUTF8, it would > > have to encode the headers. > You're right, it doesn't. AFAICS use of the SMTPUTF8 extension is incompatible with DKIM signatures. See sec. 5.3 of RFC 6376. > Do you have a suggestion in mind? Conform to RFC 6376.<wink /> _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
