On Wednesday 19 July 2006 21:23, John L wrote: > If you want your signatures to work, be sure the message you're signing is > as squeaky clean 2822 compliant as possible so as to give relay MTAs as > little incentive as possible to make helpful modifications. I realize > that we have existing software and we can't always upgrade it, but if we > want something that's designed to be resilient in the face of every known > hostile MTA, we already have S/MIME and this is not it. The existing > simple canonicalization covers a large and useful set of relay MTA > behavior, so I think we should declare victory and stop. >
I have a general DKIM requirements question... I have seen a combination of references to 822 and 2822 in recent discussions on the list. Is the requirement that DKIM support both 822/2822 content (822 being the current standard) or is the intent that DKIM is just required to support 2822 content? I don't recall much discussion on this point. Scott K _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
