Re: [ietf-dkim] That weird i= is most probably EDSP

2013-08-02 Thread Michael Deutschmann
On 22 Jul 2013, John R. Levine wrote: > >> "EDSP" would be tier 1 both senderside and receiverside. That's its > >> selling point. ... > > >> TPA ADSP enhancements are tier 1 receiverside and just-barely-above tier > >> 3 senderside. ... > > Did I miss some I-Ds describing these? TPA ADSP is Otis

Re: [ietf-dkim] That weird i= is most probably EDSP

2013-08-02 Thread Murray S. Kucherawy
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 2:09 AM, Michael Deutschmann < mich...@talamasca.ocis.net> wrote: > Your question about drafts has two possible implications. The first is > "I'm not going to pay any attention to Michael until he takes up RFC > lawyering." In which case I can't help you. > My problem is t

[ietf-dkim] Seeking Clarification of the l= Tag

2013-08-02 Thread henry+d...@unlocktheinbox.com
I received and email with a l=2 tag in the DKIM Signature and after body canonicalization put the length at zero, since the body was blank. I notice that some email processors fail this condition (smartermail) and other passes this condition (gmail, port25). According to the spec "This value