IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Mark Delany" <sx6un-fcsr7@qmda.emu.st> Fri, 09 February 2018 20:28 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 263A4127023 for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Feb 2018 12:28:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.79
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.79 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIM_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=emu.st
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 QYU5C-NsY35I for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 9 Feb 2018 12:28:19 -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 6DBEA126DFF for <ietf-dkim-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Feb 2018 12:28:19 -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 w19KROaV024181; Fri, 9 Feb 2018 12:27:26 -0800
Authentication-Results: simon.songbird.com; dkim=fail reason="verification failed; unprotected key" header.d=emu.st header.i=@emu.st header.b=xrB7QnZy; dkim-adsp=none (unprotected policy); dkim-atps=neutral
Received: from f3.bushwire.net (f3.bushwire.net [203.0.120.11]) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id w19KRKcO024175 for <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>; Fri, 9 Feb 2018 12:27:22 -0800
Received: by f3.bushwire.net (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 9852434AA0C; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 06:26:21 +1000 (AEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/simple; d=emu.st; s=2017; t=1518207981; bh=SNtvSV7o9+cbgPDwDPugC7MMBuc=; h=Comments:Received:Date:Message-ID:From:To:Subject:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=xrB7QnZyxfJUgERYicS2nwKBaK4HLRK26Q50p7Ro1oOPss5URgVYW0WIU1rzOPhje U7BvNrxAUWMHAKSM9tjRkG5uj33D0dS9hPYxqIaaDLLpLOQBElgdamBEWlRz07HiDy PbJyEeKEFfKipI7BMCQOj+/8Y7zg1HLYdlNF2Y3o=F2Y3o=
Comments: QMDA 0.3a
Received: (qmail 31356 invoked by uid 1001); 9 Feb 2018 20:26:21 -0000
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2018 20:26:21 +0000
Message-ID: <20180209202621.31355.qmail@f3-external.bushwire.net>
From: Mark Delany <sx6un-fcsr7@qmda.emu.st>
To: 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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <d8afcc96-ef8e-1f57-6e87-e9f727caac89@mtcc.com>
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-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Errors-To: ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org
Sender: ietf-dkim <ietf-dkim-bounces@mipassoc.org>

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.

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 :-)

> Besides if you wanted to go from DKIM to EKIM, you'd be opening 
> pandora's box imo.

Indeed. As mentioned previously MIME-Version: 1.0 has set the standard for us to
emulate.


Mark.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email