On 05/19/2011 07:11 PM, Pete Resnick wrote: > 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.)
Yes. >> 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? DKIM should never be in the position of dictating what is "right" for the email world at large. If that world says that 8 bit is a Good Thing, it would be a pretty ridiculous situation to have DKIM being the impediment: it's a tail wagging the dog situation which is always a wrong outcome. Like I said, this is sort of academic... I don't think we're in any huge danger here :) Mike _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
