IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net> Fri, 09 February 2018 21:05 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 5131E12706D for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Feb 2018 13:05:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=bbiw.net header.b=aqRsw97r; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=bbiw.net header.b=RlBvC5v2
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 3P9N64XptGtM for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Feb 2018 13:05:23 -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 D54CF1242F7 for <ietf-dkim-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Feb 2018 13:05:23 -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 w19L4lri027145; Fri, 9 Feb 2018 13:04:48 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=bbiw.net; s=default; t=1518210291; bh=5L+JGesyMcZ9Ggzd9CTkxLf/ewAOcN3r76Aq5hnJihk=; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From; b=aqRsw97rIDcbjJe5wu+eX+MBE6vG/npwlARMDcdBrUjeRzWcMOVEtU69qZ48MIZAE F0+oj9Jf2aODAteShXWd+tAYIS/D0PfuNKVjmzxtbQbvkFevyV0LO5ZEMS18Mjp5t1 sNuEkD44tG7tcFKpSAygqDMvsUaCfIWbyfrwDKew=
Received: from [192.168.43.51] ([172.56.40.104]) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id w19L4iIf027126 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 9 Feb 2018 13:04:45 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=bbiw.net; s=default; t=1518210285; bh=hZRBKw4s4O/HytV8GZlvzF7fd6tuRV9umcpXFrIibK8=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=RlBvC5v2vPG7MaiQllEeH7AJ9BOxTC5yPC1gxKicb4MQfO707jDcSWINGbzX/LsPJ 5b7b6VFsT6JPUO+5RB/Fkypc1cm559Y4P/pBRB0bBA4JuFTZ8HfhPPIY2nCV9bH4li apoWX6fLfSIsdvJpIQxWrJSX+r5dJuK0pfYU9UQ4=
To: Mark Delany <sx6un-fcsr7@qmda.emu.st>, ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
References: <20180208161754.25028.qmail@f3-external.bushwire.net> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1802081148580.52386@ary.qy> <8269e2b7-0f10-95f6-a3c1-d320ac4749d0@bbiw.net> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1802081207120.52386@ary.qy> <87ca121d-19c3-ed75-3de0-5ee5938377cd@bbiw.net> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1802081244280.52386@ary.qy> <d7ef770e-3592-e876-6c98-5f0fbe56f7b9@bbiw.net> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1802081252290.52386@ary.qy> <20180208203207.26575.qmail@f3-external.bushwire.net> <d8afcc96-ef8e-1f57-6e87-e9f727caac89@mtcc.com> <20180209202621.31355.qmail@f3-external.bushwire.net>
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <a39a3bec-44b5-4f0a-fd56-0615e881ecba@bbiw.net>
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2018 13:03:38 -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: <20180209202621.31355.qmail@f3-external.bushwire.net>
Content-Language: en-US
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] versions, 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 2/9/2018 12:26 PM, Mark Delany wrote:
> On 08Feb18, Michael Thomas allegedly wrote:
>> I dunno, it's not like there isn't precedent for this. oh say, like ipv4
>> vs. ipv6?
> 
> Oh I dunno. The precedent of RFC822 - the very standard we rely on - has
> survived numerous upgraded and enhancements over a 36 year period and managed to
> do just fine without a version.

and SMTP...


> I might add that RFC822 seems to have adapted a lot better than the v4 vs v6
> crowd. Not sure you picked the best example of success there, Michael :-)

What's rather impressive is how aggressively the general Internet 
technically has worked to avoid learning any lessons from this disparity...


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