On Wednesday, May 02, 2012 07:23:13 PM Russell Coker wrote: > On Wed, 2 May 2012, Jon Dowland <j...@debian.org> wrote: > > On Wed, May 02, 2012 at 07:05:14PM +1000, Russell Coker wrote: > > > Having mail be silently corrupted is not acceptable. > > > > Can you expand on "silently corrupted", here? Is that when you re-encode > > the mail and send it on as 7-bit, or when you leave it alone and send it > > as 8 bit to a host that doesn't advertise accepting 8-bit? > > When you send 8 bit mail to a host that only supports 7 bit then it will be > corrupted, usually without any notification of what happened - definitely > silent corruption. > > When you re-encode mail and send it on IFF the message is DKIM signed it > could be considered to be silent corruption as the change will usually > count as breakage. > > It would be possible for a DKIM verification program to re-encode 7bit > messages to 8bit for a second attempt at verification. But if a DKIM milter > author was going to do tricky things then a better first option would be to > try removing anything between [] in the subject line which is the most > common cause of DKIM failures that I see on valid mail.
That and mailing list footers. Receivers are, of course, free to manage inbound mail filtering however they want, but if you take a message and try to recode it from 7 bit to 8 bit and see if a DKIM signature passes verification, it's still not a valid DKIM signature in any sense that RFC 4871 or its successors would recognize. Scott K -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1669928.j8eO2yxEKH@scott-latitude-e6320
