On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 6:46 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull <step...@xemacs.org> wrote:
> > OK, but is it folly to consider a header canonicalization that can > > handle this? DKIM is designed to accommodate incremental > > improvements, after all. > > Sec. 5.3 isn't, though. :-( > As I read 5.3, it says you need to make sure what you sign is what the verifier will receive. It seems to me a signer that gets 8-bit header fields can RFC2047-ize them before signing, presuming the MTA will make the same conversion before putting the signed message out on the wire. -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list dmarc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
