Charles Lindsey wrote: >> Murray, >> >> I viewed this as another layer issue. Adding a DKIM-Signature: header >> is no different than any other RFC5322 header where UTF8 conversion is >> already a consideration. But maybe to provide guidance for what parts >> of the DKIM-Signature RFC5322 header needs to be UTF8 ready, I think >> that might the following text is useful. >> >> RFC5322 messages should be prepared with UTF-8 readiness >> when required. For the DKIM-Signature RFC5322 header, >> implementators SHOULD focus on tags d=, s= and i= to be >> UTF8 ready. > > Is there anything that actually needs to be done with a UTF-8 header that > is not covered already in our DKIm spec.?
The heads up is mentioned (in an odd way), but I think John's proposal to define it as A-label is probably the right way. -- HLS _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
