Re: [ietf-dkim] dot-forward, was 8bit downgrades
On 24/May/11 16:14, John R. Levine wrote: >> Although it is a minor number of messages, I don't think that >> ignore-by-design could play a winning role here, because --unlike >> mailing lists-- there is no way to eventually fix this at the >> forwarding MTA. > > If the EAI work is any guide, in the long run everything will be 8 bit, > and downgrades will eventually go away. Well, this consideration suggests it would be smoother to remove the recommendation to use transfer encoding now, rather than suddenly turn it into the opposite recommendation in a post-EAI DKIM spec. Anyway, if that is going to take decades, a more robust canonicalization could be worth its while. > In the shorter term, if the forwarding MTA is inclined to be helpful, it > can re-sign on the way out. SPF experience says MTAs often don't help. Even if they did, the resulting SDID would be neither the author's domain nor the MLM. ___ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
Re: [ietf-dkim] dot-forward, was 8bit downgrades
> Although it is a minor number of messages, I don't think that > ignore-by-design could play a winning role here, because --unlike > mailing lists-- there is no way to eventually fix this at the > forwarding MTA. If the EAI work is any guide, in the long run everything will be 8 bit, and downgrades will eventually go away. In the shorter term, if the forwarding MTA is inclined to be helpful, it can re-sign on the way out. Regards, John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly ___ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
[ietf-dkim] dot-forward, was 8bit downgrades
On 24/May/11 15:22, John Levine wrote: >>> Of the 31, 20 were from Keith Moore signed messages into the IETF-SMTP >>> list with a 3rd party signature and Hoffman's list server (non-dkim >>> aware) doing this: > > Oh, it's a mailing list. Why are we even having this discussion? We all > know there's a million ways that lists break incoming signatures, which > is why they should sign on the way out. IMHO, that MLM is only responsible for the inserted whiteline; MIME rewriting is done by MTA/MDA. This rewriting is typical of a class of messages that arrive at an MTA and then undergo a dot-forward or similar mechanism. Although it is a minor number of messages, I don't think that ignore-by-design could play a winning role here, because --unlike mailing lists-- there is no way to eventually fix this at the forwarding MTA. ___ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
