IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net> Thu, 08 February 2018 16:24 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 7412F12DA0D for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 08:24:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=bbiw.net header.b=i53Todzg; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=bbiw.net header.b=DxLEOdGx
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 OeVHysfQUhNw for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 08:24:08 -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 B404712DA04 for <ietf-dkim-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 08:24:08 -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 w18GNQJV000673; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 08:23:26 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=bbiw.net; s=default; t=1518107008; bh=RP2TwjBuv8RWsByFKW+NsIhYe1GAeBmIn4GvHb0h3Y0=; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From; b=i53TodzgNKRC1kIvBLuaSb4UGP4JrQ9VzZ64Qbth4VPmUytGG6ggJNCQBRbfCex+9 qcxKeJb2B4+dwi/i2ChYf9f0/AM5ZFGUtbQLH4cvfJl8viLhPwGWQ0KGg2pIuv67Z8 mV3z3qNBmoRbtPt5tj8V2aPvOZ5iI3U28ocMOGo4=
Received: from [192.168.1.168] (76-218-8-128.lightspeed.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [76.218.8.128]) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id w18GNOXB000669 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 8 Feb 2018 08:23:24 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=bbiw.net; s=default; t=1518107004; bh=qGNuaSQTsrC1Y2u/Rf8rwb370QfBLsxD7jeg4F2QBjs=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=DxLEOdGx27cAItauKlJ00ZS154q04dws42valkgv6UI/1hQBGPwJY8DnZ+g4FCHm6 OKvgYsfj5mEjOjDAr5Oc2JTxZMxeQiejPAKtr5cCJmt+hRMYOdzmlpqcde6xnCuVQ9 leJFksvypv9PNhpzcBqcSxxpnUWCx9FTQo+SrRH0=
To: Mark Delany <sx6un-fcsr7@qmda.emu.st>
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>
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <bc2ebea5-dc1c-8183-6ec9-c87fc2452283@bbiw.net>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 08:22:20 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180208161754.25028.qmail@f3-external.bushwire.net>
Content-Language: en-US
Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] 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 2/8/2018 8:17 AM, Mark Delany wrote:
>> "v=1" doesn't have to come first.  It just usually does.  I think there was
>> a version of RFC4871 that did that, but then when challenged we couldn't
>> come up with a good reason to keep it that way.
> 
> 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.


There appears to be a genetically-encoded belief in the value of version 
numbers, independent of the logic against it.  The belief is pervasive 
and seems to cross all technical cultures, experiential sets, and 
protocol layers.

d/


-- 
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email