[ietf-dkim] NEW ISSUE: NAKED CR & LF issues with body canonicalization

[Michael Thomas]

John L wrote:

>
>>> My strong suggestion is to say that if you want your DKIM signatures
>>> to interoperate, you should only sign compliant mail. 
>>
>> That's completely unhelpful.
>
>
> Just in case you missed it the last three times I said this: make the 
> message compliant, then sign it.

I guess you missed where I said that you'd be better taking that up with 
Eric.

>
> I suppose I can sort of imagine hypothetical situations where two 
> hosts would be passing messages back and forth that require naked CR 
> or LF, but that's a private network, not SMTP.  I am utterly unable to 
> imagine why an IETF standard should require DKIM to handle such 
> messages when we all know that the only reason they happen is software 
> bugs, and it's already common practice to fix them up at a relay.

Incorrect. They could be applications that were built well before the 
issuing of RFC 2822,
were following STD11 and thus completely in spec. It's hardly asking 
very much to
expect IETF specs to be liberal in what they receive when it comes to 
previous full standards
with 25 years of legacy.

       Mike