On 5/22/11 10:38 PM, John R. Levine wrote: >> Specify MUST, but clarify that this is just for now and may be revisited >> at a later time -- for example, if the SMTP protcol design community ever >> backs down and accepts DJB's approach to the 8-bit message problem >> (<http://cr.yp.to/smtp/8bitmime.html>, essentially that it is OK to break >> any remaining 7-bit enforcing servers). They probably won't ever, but >> just in case... > If you were following the EAI work, you'd know that they probably will do > that within the next couple of months, albeit with an SMTP flag so servers > and clients can tell whether a hop is 8-bit UTF or legacy. They > specifically do NOT provide any downgrade mechanism -- if a path isn't EAI > from end to end, the message can't be delivered. (Please read the many > years of archives of the EAI list, in which they tried every imaginable > approach via many experimental RFCs and a lot of running code, before > commenting on the wisdom of this approach.) > > I beseech this group to refrain from hypothetiecal guesses about what some > of us might think would be a good idea to address some anticipated > problem, even though nobody has tried it. It was a mistake in the mailing > list so-called BCP, and it would be a mistake here. > > There will be DKIM signatures on EAI messages. It is pretty obvious how > to do it, and in the few corners where it's not obvious, we won't know the > right answer any better than anyone else until we've tried it and seen > what happens. Agreed.
-Doug _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
