Murray S. Kucherawy writes: > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 8:17 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull <[email protected]> > wrote:
> > 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 /> > > OK, but is it folly to consider a header canonicalization that can > handle this? DKIM is designed to accommodate incremental > improvements, after all. Sec. 5.3 isn't, though. :-( _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
