On Sun, Jul 16, 2006 at 09:35:22PM -0700, Michael Thomas allegedly wrote: > John L wrote: > > > > >>>My strong suggestion is to say that if you want your DKIM signatures > >>>to interoperate, you should only sign compliant mail. > >> > >>That's completely unhelpful. > > > > > >Just in case you missed it the last three times I said this: make the > >message compliant, then sign it. > > I guess you missed where I said that you'd be better taking that up with > Eric.
Strange. You must have missed where I suggested you take it up with Eric. That suggestion being fix the problem at the layer creating the problem. If your SMTP listener is presenting you with mal-formed mail, then that's a contractual matter between you and your SMTP listener to resolve. You and it should agree on what to do with malformed mail prior to bothering with verifying or whatever else you do. Ditto your submitter. If it presents you with non-compliant mail, make it compliant prior to signing. Conflating SMTP or SUBMIT bugs into another protocol is entirely unnecessary when you can fix it much more cleanly at the boundary. All I hear you saying is that such boundary fixes should be uniform as far as is possible. That sounds fair. Mark. _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
