On 5/19/11 6:09 PM, Michael Thomas wrote: > We send things that get forwarded through all kinds of manglers, > 8bit manglers just being one variety. In the abstract, you can never know > as a signer that a path is "clean"... it can always be forwarded. So by your > argument it should be a MUST since you can never know.
(I'll assume here that you're using a loose definition for "forwarded" and are really talking about either relaying or resending. Forwarding in the usual sense is not something that DKIM *should* survive.) I absolutely agree that most of the world is an environment where you can't know end to end and therefore *most* implementations MUST downgrade. However, there can be environments, normally by out-of-band agreement, that are 8-bit clean end to end. There, it is perfectly reasonable not to downgrade. > But that creates > the silly-state of DKIM wagging the 8bit SMTP tail, which is a wrong > outcome. > I'm not sure what you mean here. What is the "right" outcome? pr -- Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/> Qualcomm Incorporated - Direct phone: (858)651-4478, Fax: (858)651-1102 _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
