On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 8:17 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull <step...@xemacs.org> wrote:
> > > An mta could opt to send a message with unencoded utf8 headers (display > > > name, subject, etc) to another peer advertising SMTPUTF8 even if none > of > > > the envelope were internationalized addresses. If the recipient then > needed > > > to relay the message on to a site that didn't support SMTPUTF8, it > would > > > have to encode the headers. > > > You're right, it doesn't. > > AFAICS use of the SMTPUTF8 extension is incompatible with DKIM > signatures. See sec. 5.3 of RFC 6376. > > > Do you have a suggestion in mind? > > Conform to RFC 6376.<wink /> > OK, but is it folly to consider a header canonicalization that can handle this? DKIM is designed to accommodate incremental improvements, after all. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
