On 23 May 2011, at 15:19, Hector Santos wrote: > Ian Eiloart wrote: >> On 20 May 2011, at 05:24, Hector Santos wrote: >> >>> In this case, if this is enforced with a MUST, for a system that is >>> not 8BITMIME ready but is adding DKIM signing support, to remain >>> compliant it is far more feasible to add a rule to a DKIM signing >>> component: >>> >>> If mail is 8bit then SKIP signing. >> >> But why skip? Usually the message won't be downgraded. And even if they >> are, usually a broken signature will cause no harm. > > Thats the problem - define "usually" and also define "no harm." >
Well, harm will only be done when someone incorrectly punishes a broken signature. They should not do that, so the damage is actually done by the recipient, not by the downgrading. -- Ian Eiloart Postmaster, University of Sussex +44 (0) 1273 87-3148 _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
