Re: [Ietf-dkim] Testing a DKIM implementation

Scott Kitterman <ietf-dkim@kitterman.com> Fri, 22 March 2024 23:47 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-dkim@kitterman.com>
X-Original-To: ietf-dkim@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-dkim@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82735C151081 for <ietf-dkim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Mar 2024 16:47:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.108
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.108 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=neutral reason="invalid (unsupported algorithm ed25519-sha256)" header.d=kitterman.com header.b="sDQ96mH+"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kitterman.com header.b="E5UX5LUP"
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id OE132veW9WMl for <ietf-dkim@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 22 Mar 2024 16:47:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [IPv6:2604:a00:6:1039:225:90ff:feaa:b169]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1B2F4C14F71D for <ietf-dkim@ietf.org>; Fri, 22 Mar 2024 16:47:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from interserver.kitterman.com (interserver.kitterman.com [IPv6:2604:a00:6:1039:225:90ff:feaa:b169]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B721F801D0; Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:47:17 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903e; t=1711151221; h=date : from : to : subject : in-reply-to : references : message-id : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : from; bh=luvwc1V+yAnp5Apz0pYZfpisXdoBsuOyuH3WQHL3NPQ=; b=sDQ96mH+sBicH9rFXSGDlPODly2oU49NuVDrtnDXRzduYXeWBlPspA5XrtCXRk02U2/Cw 7Zr7xCWS9SQd3ysBQ==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kitterman.com; i=@kitterman.com; q=dns/txt; s=201903r; t=1711151221; h=date : from : to : subject : in-reply-to : references : message-id : mime-version : content-type : content-transfer-encoding : from; bh=luvwc1V+yAnp5Apz0pYZfpisXdoBsuOyuH3WQHL3NPQ=; b=E5UX5LUPDH9dK/JUylidC3owTNNgmiEhn53UgtMkuadS4cyTWXyUBIZcvdJolojagRvYO Km/snvQqsD3K2YfMHrfN3WVFmWmb9E58Shun/xQUuavVDfkOcGVZWgxOdXwoqe76lY329TZ geDI3bZ5M93tond57x1bp05n3nPYD3Ll8TcejXW0aXjGVfBYgBCgn1P5ywGrMWZ9iDOO0Bc DZaHHoyBdG0cET530s7fTn1QyaFSZoz0xwPWpMvFhJTHoMe9vXrf7sE2B+1sLdGRWzAF95L 3bqWzFkFep1jS5tsWaaQ3pRJQYtHir8vifLsc+IHHTrCBMoLDLqp8OD+10aQ==
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (mobile-166-170-35-28.mycingular.net [166.170.35.28]) by interserver.kitterman.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 32E30F801A6; Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:47:01 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 23:46:57 +0000
From: Scott Kitterman <ietf-dkim@kitterman.com>
To: ietf-dkim@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20240322233116.HltawnVh@steffen%sdaoden.eu>
References: <65FD789C.26406.50826198@David.Harris.pmail.gen.nz> <20240322233116.HltawnVh@steffen%sdaoden.eu>
Message-ID: <059E3033-1706-4C22-9971-6EFCF1D63723@kitterman.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-dkim/PpstfUIym1N7LpaytCzwx2SL_VE>
Subject: Re: [Ietf-dkim] Testing a DKIM implementation
X-BeenThere: ietf-dkim@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DKIM List <ietf-dkim.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-dkim>, <mailto:ietf-dkim-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-dkim/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-dkim@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-dkim-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-dkim>, <mailto:ietf-dkim-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2024 23:47:34 -0000


On March 22, 2024 11:31:16 PM UTC, Steffen Nurpmeso <steffen@sdaoden.eu> wrote:
>David Harris wrote in
> <65FD789C.26406.50826198@David.Harris.pmail.gen.nz>:
> |My thanks to Murray S. Kucherawy, who was most helpful in answering my 
> |previous questions about specifics of RFC6376..
> |
> |I now have my implementation complete: I was wondering if there is a 
> |recommended way of testing it - for instance, a reference site that \
> |allows you 
> |to send messages and then replies with information about the correctness \
> |of 
> |your implementation, or an application that can generate signatures \
> |for data 
> |you supply, showing its work product (the various hashes and canonicalized 
> |forms) so you can compare it with your own.
> |
> |Any pointers would be appreciated.
>
>I can quote a mail of mine from March 6th:
>
>  I am thankful i could contact https://www.appmaildev.com/de/dkim
>  for testing purposes.  (If you read this: your service is
>  broken, it does not support continuation lines in DKIM
>  signatures *at*all*.  But thank you!)
>
>It also does not support Ed25519.
>(Maybe they fixed it.  Apologies for when i am wrong.)
>
> |Thanks in advance for any assistance.

If someone wants to test Ed25519, contact me off list.

Scott K