IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net> Sat, 10 February 2018 17:20 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 8B9A312D7EA for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 09:20:24 -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=XjrArCys; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=bbiw.net header.b=FRbfPnWb
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 PsMViUvAA2u4 for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 09:20:22 -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 E0DA41276AF for <ietf-dkim-archive@ietf.org>; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 09:20:22 -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 w1AHJFm5009755; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 09:19:17 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=bbiw.net; s=default; t=1518283163; bh=37DlOxbnED1RV9PaxSm8FkkisUQH0NAD7GAeI6Zckt8=; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From; b=XjrArCysFuiEHBQpPgre41gHOSFQ5zdhDsc2JgOdODharqEq4GSSDq700vJhkmrhq xUGIvqmHZVwaKvHtn9mNhGYUI0OlqD26J1UZOVd2pR9ay/dmMIXvWHpgBh6pUSleQM tqh3IvslB7i7VfNL6sJBpx6Uw3zN7M30pG/vR03I=
Received: from [192.168.1.5] (236.sub-174-215-16.myvzw.com [174.215.16.236]) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id w1AHJEvV009747 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 10 Feb 2018 09:19:15 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=bbiw.net; s=default; t=1518283155; bh=NS8puSobMaBC5EEb25lFHcaZZgliWIik7hhZEsA4nNo=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=FRbfPnWbS3XXylXHCVodeMGv6fwi432MipPMyAkKJ426meJbKSLSWjgRcwUKNrA0V xgOWfafjXAAnl8BsWmH5dHgTMUQBs0XMsXh+RbP7MqbRsGgvWWmjXtHl+EiKn0nhBu 1BtK489W4ZYWwbKPNwSVNOz8rSaqbGkvukUgK9lc=
To: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>, DKIM List <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>
References: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1802091731220.56915@ary.qy>
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <0c082629-5766-d67f-4c3f-ccc08a735bc3@bbiw.net>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 09:18:08 -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: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1802091731220.56915@ary.qy>
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 2/9/2018 2:31 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
> In article <20180209202621.31355.qmail@f3-external.bushwire.net>,
> Mark Delany <sx6un-fcsr7@qmda.emu.st> wrote:
>> Oh I dunno. The precedent of RFC822 - the very standard we rely on - has
>> survived numerous upgraded and enhancements over a 36 year period and 
>> managed
>> to do just fine without a version.
> 
> RFC 822 may not have versions but 821/2821/5321 sure do.
> 
> As soon as 2821 added EHLO, SMTP got service extensions and pretty
> much by their nature, those extensions are not backward compatible.


Sorry.  Where is the version number for SMTP?

Which is to day, thanks for demonstrating my point:  the 'version' flag 
is implicit with the features that are added.  If they are present, you 
have the 'newer' version.

These are not 'version' flags.  They are feature indicators.

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