Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org [mailto:ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org] >> On Behalf Of John R. Levine >> Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2011 6:44 AM >> To: SM >> Cc: DKIM List >> Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] MLM and C14N >> >>> Hi Hector, >>> At 15:20 14-05-2011, Hector Santos wrote: >>>> Shouldn't the MLM I-D say something regarding C14N and CR/LF related >>>> mutations? >>> No. >> +1 to the No. > > +1 to the No. > > This is a software problem,
You mean the MLM who is ignorant of DKIM meta data for the past "40 years?" > not something that needs to be solved by creating a protocol extension. Isn't that what you are doing in this MLM I-D, creating a DKIM "protocol extension" for MLMs? IMV, this MLM I-D is 100% about a MLM and VERIFIER mail integration protocol inconsistency, i.e. software problems, in dictating whats MLM and Verifier Software need to be considered and change to retrofit DKIM and ADSP into a MLM and MLM related issues with verifiers. IMV, the issue equally falls in the same MLM chaotic environment in how there long legacy behavior and different ways it can break transparent meta data we call DKIM. The extra <CRLF> preexisted DKIM - we can tell these software to not do this or that for the sake of DKIM, but is that realistic? I don't think so - the burden is on DKIM. -- Hector Santos, CTO http://www.santronics.com http://santronics.blogspot.com _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html