On Wed, 2012-05-02 at 19:23 +1000, Russell Coker wrote: > On Wed, 2 May 2012, Jon Dowland <firstname.lastname@example.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. [...] So DKIM is broken by design. Not sure why anyone should care to work around this. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Design a system any fool can use, and only a fool will want to use it.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part