IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> Thu, 08 February 2018 16:54 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 97FA51201F8 for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 08:54:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.789
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.789 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, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1536-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=iecc.com
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 AAvQKqmub7g3 for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 08:54:35 -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 57FB912D7ED for <ietf-dkim-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 08:54:35 -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 w18Grbn8002137; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 08:53:39 -0800
Authentication-Results: simon.songbird.com; dkim=fail reason="verification failed; unprotected key" header.d=iecc.com header.i=@iecc.com header.b=NQHobTQ2; dkim-adsp=none (unprotected policy); dkim-atps=neutral
Received: from gal.iecc.com (gal.iecc.com [64.57.183.53]) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id w18GrYKl002133 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 08:53:36 -0800
Received: (qmail 8622 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2018 16:52:37 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=21ac.5a7c8055.k1802; bh=//SjZ8eCqXutF0FFhYvUXpwMKechZg+ZiXdH3hKV62s=; b=NQHobTQ2LfAx6m9w1nVJlIN7YupFNRfiqTZlc7ubBvdMtgsO2hnpVrycq8Sfvxl4tJdTqGEO6smuVWhKRUlKKVbByIPxnFV8IK4L6Yy5z9cECVXPWr+9WhA1TptLqFYKDhMsthcM1V/7hsAXS5JrsHKhFtQHsPX1r1hQ7fcsEPNGVmWqDB0vbIu5reaF1PufYxRIBQ/eqUI/dO3mNeD8zgMuySRMEwqy9IAEzimwU082rA50k15jIP/IX+hCZJXm
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by imap.iecc.com ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2/X.509/AEAD) via TCP6; 08 Feb 2018 16:52:37 -0000
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 11:52:36 -0500
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1802081148580.52386@ary.qy>
From: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: Mark Delany <sx6un-fcsr7@qmda.emu.st>
In-Reply-To: <20180208161754.25028.qmail@f3-external.bushwire.net>
References: <9e7d6a29-cbef-e032-4af9-eb5395071b4d@tana.it> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1802080808160.51311@ary.qy> <CAL0qLwYZPRdrg-J5KMreS==SUcnAU1pZXwgFURs5T3=XaX4HOg@mail.gmail.com> <20180208161754.25028.qmail@f3-external.bushwire.net>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (OSX 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
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 Thu, 8 Feb 2018, Mark Delany wrote:
> Heh. I'm still waiting to hear a good reason as to why "v=" exists at all - apart
> from exposing brittle parsers which mistakenly expect it to show up as the first
> tag.

I had a draft that invented v=2, for headers with a tag syntax that is not 
quite backward compatible with the current spec.  I realize that we could 
change the header to DKIM-Improved-Signature but the change was small and 
it smelled to me like the same header.

See https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-levine-dkim-conditional/

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email