[ietf-dkim] features and versions and running code
"John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> Sat, 10 February 2018 18:45 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 DBC1D129C56 for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 10:45:55 -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 vKYNfRI_NbdC for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 10:45:54 -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 2564212426E for <ietf-dkim-archive@ietf.org>; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 10:45:54 -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 w1AIixis015088; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 10:45:00 -0800
Authentication-Results: simon.songbird.com; dkim=fail reason="verification failed; unprotected key" header.d=iecc.com header.i=@iecc.com header.b=Ae2JoeaG; 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 w1AIit7a015083 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 10:44:57 -0800
Received: (qmail 38120 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2018 18:43:57 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=94e5.5a7f3d6d.k1802; bh=AdeFLH4Ogd9ds1MMau+OzATCPVR822j3f/mn52DRI0E=; b=Ae2JoeaGen4tBE2nlGXgW6Fk9dQ6+VS2FmQr6e4Yx9BCUU5ZY34WbMg7yo1om9UJO/9w2KYlBzoUhvsB/NexHkM9f43fSNnD9PQ2ZioCZLemFFc3v0Qa3Sl5VZYErd2O80hnM1MltCMB5yX1C7qdSBIXl62JPmEZ4zP6uioqCyWbBWMKDsRqLuSdCgzed2yifW3BhjaaSCHGaT8YYFcUaLrtENlcrKbHMcBwCoi78MTKq1WdgxI0iUnmtXIC1R44
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; 10 Feb 2018 18:43:57 -0000
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 13:43:56 -0500
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1802101343330.58756@ary.qy>
From: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (OSX 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: [ietf-dkim] features and versions and running code
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>
> The current point of departure into DKIM is by the header field name. So I'm > not sure why 'other than' is being queried, since it's the natural, existing > point for going to a different protocol. Hmmn. Yesterday someone seemed to agree that keeping the same header name would make life easier for all the code that looks for a DKIM-Signature header to decide whether to call the DKIM library, since in any sensible scenario the old and new DKIM headers are handled by one library with a single verification interface. Has he changed his mind? R's, John _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
- [ietf-dkim] features and versions and running code John R. Levine