Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM and EAI

"John R. Levine" <> Fri, 09 February 2018 22:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8E721270FC for <>; Fri, 9 Feb 2018 14:04:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.79
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1536-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NJ0f-AsUwnsQ for <>; Fri, 9 Feb 2018 14:04:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 151681270A3 for <>; Fri, 9 Feb 2018 14:04:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id w19M32E3031322; Fri, 9 Feb 2018 14:03:03 -0800
Authentication-Results:; dkim=fail reason="verification failed; unprotected key" header.b=oev0KPHP; dkim-adsp=none (unprotected policy); dkim-atps=neutral
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id w19M2wIU031318 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <>; Fri, 9 Feb 2018 14:03:00 -0800
Received: (qmail 62007 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2018 22:02:01 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple;; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=f233.5a7e1a59.k1802; bh=m1F5Q2jZR1vvYR+yW8GOwHtdwfSWjtZ+dgg+OazFNXY=; b=oev0KPHPdofNoCT363L8OKls3d0SPqLZBcuxKTLJey7xLVmG4lBtCCrHv8OfThp+g+wMFJIxSV95HA0oIzQHhw9SLl6ct9IlN2Xj1mFK5dUHcq1vq7aU+GbZWSx4kvCUzi+iNYW9PpP+cmeCy7/sFqZwKFCCHiYVQsWC7YPT8P6T4He8+D7cfWb/jD/NZvX6NJkAewjQtxcQwr2fCkY4SnDn6xHAgytBlUFviw3DMqdJ/sC9ZvMcGqBKcFFuYC1j
Received: from localhost ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) by ([IPv6:2001:470:1f07:1126::78:696d:6170]) with ESMTPS (TLS1.2/X.509/AEAD) via TCP6; 09 Feb 2018 22:02:00 -0000
Date: 9 Feb 2018 17:02:00 -0500
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1802091700001.56621@ary.qy>
From: "John R. Levine" <>
To: "DKIM List" <>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1712052213140.62996@ary.qy>
References: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1712052213140.62996@ary.qy>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (OSX 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] DKIM and EAI
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.16
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DKIM Discussion List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
Sender: "ietf-dkim" <>

> If I may once again change the topic for a moment ...


I pushed out a new version that says something about SPF macros, 
attempting to say that if you try to expand a UTF-8 local part, it doesn't 
match anything.  I figure this is consistent with what would happen if 
your local part was something like which won't match anything 

I would appreciate if people would take a look and see if anything seems 
obviously wrong.  I'm doing some EAI whitepapery things for ICANN and it 
would be nice if, for a change, the advice they offer matches reality.

John Levine,, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to