IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net> Thu, 08 February 2018 17:51 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 27D3D127078 for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 09:51:36 -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=lhOy0/R0; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=bbiw.net header.b=QqnywJDM
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 2pBtrHo1wjRb for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 09:51:34 -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 A23B8126C2F for <ietf-dkim-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 09:51:34 -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 w18Hoh7D006150; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 09:50:43 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=bbiw.net; s=default; t=1518112245; bh=Gk5seQRJUOL3/TU8pp671FGLAgHgu7mSncX++2MOmvg=; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From; b=lhOy0/R0Af0JMBHHZlIKUAPVusZymJdxC31P4BTo9+MqvelyIi9YQRYNuiFSyFEsC qnoXSEt4jHyVbnD31WABmaPdzT06SnjmLq7a47fIrKvJfRtCpKG8+Zi4o+9MjoNKLU guilxRq1WaafUw7wii1/VyUDTEI61HZIz+ch9QGU=
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 w18Hofmd006141 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 8 Feb 2018 09:50:41 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=bbiw.net; s=default; t=1518112241; bh=HUOgzJbHkgpd9joKUcTjVoVDWtaP3+fjcqBHXyHb3Vw=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=QqnywJDM/OAFPPOLDQFmXu+7Fr8irQpFAmOX1CrSqDZ5lmUT7v7YaSCwqMCJRBpJN pibibEfD677UGyN4Czt3Hx6wU+dJZaI//6HdU3LdcUWv5Y+qf0LSRop47uMYWrUcB5 2+zjZHsPrX5qOsZF5Whxxkks+Qny6ydq4zddHfco=
To: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
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> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1802081148580.52386@ary.qy> <8269e2b7-0f10-95f6-a3c1-d320ac4749d0@bbiw.net> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1802081207120.52386@ary.qy> <87ca121d-19c3-ed75-3de0-5ee5938377cd@bbiw.net> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1802081244280.52386@ary.qy>
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <d7ef770e-3592-e876-6c98-5f0fbe56f7b9@bbiw.net>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 09:49:39 -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.2.21.1802081244280.52386@ary.qy>
Content-Language: en-US
Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
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 2/8/2018 9:45 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
> Huh?  v=1 code doesn't know what the new features would be.


Re-read what I wrote.

The code that knows to dispatch to v=2 can, just as easily, parse for 
the strings associated with the new features.

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