IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ietf-dkim] Where is the formal definition of DKIM-Signature?

Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net> Thu, 08 February 2018 16:14 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E85212D77B for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 08:14:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=bbiw.net header.b=HUyRa6vH; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=bbiw.net header.b=rSyqzKKv
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bECI04pB_gC1 for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 08:14:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (simon.songbird.com [72.52.113.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D01B01242F5 for <ietf-dkim-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 08:14:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from simon.songbird.com (simon.songbird.com [127.0.0.1]) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id w18GDJIK032743; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 08:13:19 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=bbiw.net; s=default; t=1518106402; bh=wXKS4SpMab23w0oRc2g8CuiDEmzEQCvP8wpKude7ifs=; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From; b=HUyRa6vHxRn2nW9MQoqPDycrfag/gwlPHLEBgqetbJCRWhfvydto3NC7NGYE+VK60 zlyDI4sEoUR3l9ydwFVAKxgZhWx6GTrp8b8KdRHtV8jQ9xxkWqdVhA4uSaRkwZK2kj vpvcU5OxZWCPeLu+5k06sk94615qFroinnCMxGx8=
Received: from [192.168.1.168] (76-218-8-128.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.128]) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id w18GDHeV032739 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 8 Feb 2018 08:13:17 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=bbiw.net; s=default; t=1518106397; bh=J2oSsuTmeHoXJBBmueIM90jNa+nhshZxp9Nze5/sOa8=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=rSyqzKKvHFIWMuQ23FN38xfIR7sycq5jo69O1sQAncl3MnadRAvtQoyli+l6AA26A ILoWMHVE5U6ny1SD3z7T3tpB9qKOWij2tOj+LYwIOkvjA+FhOGtxEjgXl5DDtJuI8q vxj7C22yCHPLJB1Dv2HOYw9Z2CzTDjKpzZMTVsSg=
To: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
References: <9e7d6a29-cbef-e032-4af9-eb5395071b4d@tana.it> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1802080808160.51311@ary.qy> <95c31903-5181-c6f8-11af-68d492418f46@bbiw.net> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1802081053330.52201@ary.qy>
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <b372798d-c7a2-3570-839c-a10ccab3acf6@bbiw.net>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 08:12:13 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1802081053330.52201@ary.qy>
Content-Language: en-US
Cc: DKIM List <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] Where is the formal definition of DKIM-Signature?
X-BeenThere: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.16
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DKIM Discussion List <ietf-dkim.mipassoc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mipassoc.org/mailman/options/ietf-dkim>, <mailto:ietf-dkim-request@mipassoc.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mipassoc.org/pipermail/ietf-dkim/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-dkim-request@mipassoc.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mipassoc.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim>, <mailto:ietf-dkim-request@mipassoc.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org
Sender: ietf-dkim <ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org>

On 2/8/2018 8:05 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
> I'm not saying any sensible person would do that, but as far as I can 
> tell, that's what the spec says.


 From a quick review of RFC 5322, I think you are correct.  I also 
believe (know) that this is not what has been intended for header field 
name specification, dating back to RFC 733.

That is, the capability you note is contrary to what I believe was 
intended in the RFC 5322 specification.  And deviation from iontent is 
the requirement for qualifying as an errata on an RFC.

I suggest you submit it.  It will be interesting to see the followup.

d/

-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email