Barry Leiba wrote: >> 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 believe there are two parts to the answer to that: > 1. We refer to RFC 282x, as the current standard, and that's what we're > aiming to support. > 2. We're trying, to the extent we reasonably can, to deal with most of > what's actually out there, ... > > Does anyone think that's not the right answer?
I think your language describes things quite nicely. I am pretty sure that DKIM does not have anything that cares about 822 vs. 2822. That is, it works for both. So I have tended to view the dual-reference approach as a means of communicating to folks that they do not have to worry about old-vs-new specifications for message syntax/semantics. d/ -- Dave Crocker Brandenburg InternetWorking bbiw.net _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
