Re: [ietf-dkim] versions of RFC822 mail messages, Where is the formal definition of DKIM-Signature?

Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net> Sat, 10 February 2018 18:24 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 414A2129C6C for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 10:24:07 -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=YMTuOv9b; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=bbiw.net header.b=Ji9DOsIR
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 n7XZ_11W-Qje for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 10:24:05 -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 BF85012426E for <ietf-dkim-archive@ietf.org>; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 10:24:05 -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 w1AIN8E0013964; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 10:23:09 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=bbiw.net; s=default; t=1518286994; bh=IUh8SI961yc+ULi4EGq3B9b9yFRDIxlJXUtMSl6oyQk=; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From; b=YMTuOv9baz4TFp0w+RXiXKQh3bZV1EvUJ/x7xLWUr8h4fl463d4yCDaMq/fdHjnvX 3+nhloIf/PTkkulv5REvIdUTSBuSDyWp6nacjWC0243ml2Lrk1oiZXMtvz6OcOFM47 qc/GZieonjETWG8gQETxCtYei5XCkF09IG15A6qs=
Received: from [192.168.43.51] ([172.58.91.116]) (authenticated bits=0) by simon.songbird.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id w1AIN4xc013957 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 10 Feb 2018 10:23:05 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=bbiw.net; s=default; t=1518286986; bh=uK0eaepMlobGg4EnjlXd+VIoodJo0FDOn/d9r+2bgno=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=Ji9DOsIRs/bexju2b7EIAMVv0ZTvoFOBYJXgyT2sIg9vmr1XPUfrwslukHI1U8Lqo HpP7DlxyZzb9nmUUSgVC/gGbWjOCJUTHE0lyCE2x4T5qKjflQgYGFurAfaSD8hMITb JbSfUv7F12mq3G7mT9GfNPzAKYZdlljN52fqRvr8=
To: Michael Thomas <mike@mtcc.com>, ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
References: <20180210155011.3735B1A7DD64@ary.qy> <47dd136e-e122-9bd2-8cf1-7a712770d930@bbiw.net> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1802101244340.58081@ary.qy> <151740cf-796e-16eb-2ef5-ca296b5d4af0@bbiw.net> <84d515c0-7c76-232d-464f-3215db00d14d@mtcc.com>
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <e561d00e-d313-e700-77ff-6ead65a37bc9@bbiw.net>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 10:22:00 -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: <84d515c0-7c76-232d-464f-3215db00d14d@mtcc.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] versions of RFC822 mail messages, 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 2/10/2018 10:12 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
> DKIM-Signature-v2: vs DKIM-Signature: v=2;
> 
> Angels, meet the pinhead.

equal semantics does not mean equal implementation.  the processing for 
each of these takes place in very different parts of the system.  the 
latter requires new code, albeit internal to the DKIM module.  the 
former merely requires a new table entry.

d/

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