IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com> Fri, 09 February 2018 00:44 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 AB0EA12DA44 for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 16:44:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 l6wlD9CS9plT for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 16:44:49 -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 6FE9812DA25 for <ietf-dkim-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 16:44:49 -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 w190hlM0005231; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 16:43:48 -0800
Authentication-Results: simon.songbird.com; dkim=none reason="no signature"; dkim-adsp=fail (unprotected policy); dkim-atps=neutral
Received: from takifugu.mtcc.com (mtcc.com [50.0.18.224]) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id w190hh5A005226 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT) for <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 16:43:45 -0800
Received: from Michaels-MacBook.local (107-182-38-3.volcanocom.com [107.182.38.3]) (authenticated bits=0) by takifugu.mtcc.com (8.15.2/8.14.7) with ESMTPSA id w190gjNc007588 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO) for <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 16:42:46 -0800
To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
References: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1802080808160.51311@ary.qy> <CAL0qLwYZPRdrg-J5KMreS==SUcnAU1pZXwgFURs5T3=XaX4HOg@mail.gmail.com> <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>
From: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>
Message-ID: <d8afcc96-ef8e-1f57-6e87-e9f727caac89@mtcc.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 16:42:40 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180208203207.26575.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 2/8/18 12:32 PM, Mark Delany wrote:
> I think this is the biggest flaw with the whole v= rationale. There is never
> going to be a v=2 change that doesn't leave everyone continuing to
> generate/validate a v=1 header. Is a new header by stealth better engineering
> than formalizing a new header?
>
I dunno, it's not like there isn't precedent for this. oh say, like ipv4 
vs. ipv6?

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

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email