Re: [ietf-dkim] versions of RFC822 mail messages, Where is the formal definition of DKIM-Signature?

Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net> Mon, 12 February 2018 01:48 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 D4C38126579 for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 17:48:14 -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=i4iFlkyh; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=bbiw.net header.b=NHmlsTiP
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 G6NvOM7l5ZrM for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 17:48:13 -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 9CB4712025C for <ietf-dkim-archive@ietf.org>; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 17:48:13 -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 w1C1lMbe029435; Sun, 11 Feb 2018 17:47:23 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=bbiw.net; s=default; t=1518400051; bh=kewj8g6CaG+rLGIBIrHRZiaquKakaXv6PVFRAQm73sI=; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From; b=i4iFlkyhACwLr5Yfs3CSC7W4zIMAfz1s2LGFF752ojdPnloas7tup1wQwGfwmZfWp wfSuNHqYepE9c6agBbb6Kkxclqx5h+zqjRNI7wHrfg46L5qckozLnErZ82xMSP4f22 AnJSx27EpD0hluF9xDr+CaSaGHdDGMqIir+XAtuQ=
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 w1C1lJo1029429 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 11 Feb 2018 17:47:19 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=bbiw.net; s=default; t=1518400040; bh=twZisbWOjzj1gsSNZ7aHVXT9+4hnp3pUm8efNOK+hoI=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=NHmlsTiPrvdu84Nwl+QAxuejTgGPi0XJL1Ar5zxSS6QSiBEp7cMuteZlkZioYIhld kLdJkGji9Vo2vivffvLhrS7X/Bu5r7ESt47mq+v9n8riYv4xrv0q5sDu+bbkJWJ7gt gtS25NRrdO2bMbdfaA9bdvC56bQLV7fea55juGTc=
To: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>, ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
References: <20180210155011.3735B1A7DD64@ary.qy> <47dd136e-e122-9bd2-8cf1-7a712770d930@bbiw.net> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1802101244340.58081@ary.qy> <151740cf-796e-16eb-2ef5-ca296b5d4af0@bbiw.net> <84d515c0-7c76-232d-464f-3215db00d14d@mtcc.com> <e561d00e-d313-e700-77ff-6ead65a37bc9@bbiw.net> <3912f0ba-0b17-24f5-75ec-38f7465a45b6@mtcc.com>
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <ff024002-0f7b-8987-fad2-408adb31d8e4@bbiw.net>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 17:46:13 -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: <3912f0ba-0b17-24f5-75ec-38f7465a45b6@mtcc.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] versions of RFC822 mail messages, 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 2/10/2018 10:47 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> But I still think this entire conversation is silly in its theoreticality.


Extra design complexity and consuming development resources -- 
programming, bench testing, interoperability testing -- for something 
that is not essential, nevermind offers no actual value, is about as 
practical as any standards issue can get.

Protocol complexity matters, especially for features that have no 
immediate use.

d/

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