>Ian Eiloart <i...@sussex.ac.uk> wrote: > >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.
In the real world signature reliability matters. If a domain signs mail as a rule then an absent or broken signature will be treated as suspicious. Scott K _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
