DKIM deals only with domains, so as long as you can convert the d= to puny code if needed, then you are fine…
I would also suggest that d= should contains only puny code (ASCII), i= could be problematic, you may want to ensure it does not have a local part in your implementation (e.g. [email protected]) If you use authentication-results header, for the DKIM part, the header.d= should be puny code too. On Jul 9, 2014, at 3:50 AM, Wietse Venema <[email protected]> wrote: > Jiankang Yao: >> Is there any RFC which deals with EAI DKIM ? >> how to deal with EAI message in the DKIM? >> Do we have a decision about it? > > According to RFC 6530, in-transit downgrading of messages (described > in detail in RFC 5504) is eliminated from EAI. Downgrading to an > ASCII-only form may occur before or during the initial message > submission, or after the delivery to the final delivery MTA. > > Thus, instead of being downgraded in-transit, mail is returned as > undeliverable. >
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
