On Thursday 20 July 2006 11:51, Dave Crocker wrote: > 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/
OK. I may have mis-remembered, but I thought that one aspect of the naked CR discussion (which a spun this thread off of) was that a naked CR is allowed by 822, but not 2822. So I think there is something that cares. Also, I think what you are saying is different than what Barry is saying. To paraphrase: Barry - Design requirement is to support 2822, but we will try to deal with what is out there are much as we reasonably can (including 822). Dave - Design requirement is to support 2822 and there aren't any 822/2822 differences that matter, so by supporting 2822, we also support 822. I think we need to have clarity on this point and it doesn't seem to me that we have it at this time. Scott K _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
