It was the second. I personally don't have time to hunt through decade old email archives. That argument was made, but didn't carry the day.
Scott K On October 4, 2017 2:15:02 AM EDT, Rick van Rein <[email protected]> wrote: >Hello, > >Thanks to Scott for his feedback: > >> Making DKIM signing MIME aware was specifically rejected during DKIM >> development due to implementation complexity. > >I'm afraid I wasn't there, but would like to learn from the past. Any >references are welcome. > > >But what exactly do you mean by "implementation complexity"? > > - the need to incorporate MIME-knowledge into an MTA (which one might >argue is not new -- but it is now a requirement for the signing and >verifying MTA, which may have gotten by without until now) > > - the added complexity during signing and verification (I would agree; >but argue that this reflects the complexity of the mail system, and >ends >there; it will not grow without bounds) > > - the need for two passes during verification (I am working on that; >recognising an initial bit of text may be better than a rolling >checksum >over the entire text) > > - ...? > >I think the most important advantage of Lenient DKIM is that it avoids >that a choice made in one place invalidates existing, constructive >things taking place elsewhere. ARC will not solve that discrepancy; it >imposes one administrator's choice onto others. To me, that is the >most >dire form of complexity (and a reason why people may hold back on >deploying DKIM; look at this email for example, probably being >rewritten >to UTF-8 and thereby invalidating my DKIM-Signature made with dkimpy). > > >Anywhere I repeat things already said, please feel free to point me >back >to discussions I've missed. > > >Thanks, > -Rick _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
