----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Thomas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Tony Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Tony Hansen wrote: > >> What kinds of failures have you been seeing? Any thoughts on making >> relaxed better? >> >> > The failures we've been seeing are all related to the naked CR problem. > If we made relaxed also canonicalize CR or LF as CRLF, it would certainly > help, and not have the uncertainty of whether forcing the actual body to > be 2822 compliant will be harmful. It shouldn't be an issue forcing 2822 with original feed signings which are those with no HOPs (No Received: lines, or 1 if its your SMTP receiver). The only issue I can see is a MUA with an embedded or 3rd party DKIM hook. But with a DKIM required for RFC 2822 minimum support, that shouldn't cause an issue. In addition, the MSA may not have to sign again with such DKIM-aware MUAs. -- Hector Santos, Santronics Software, Inc. http://www.santronics.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
