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

"John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> Thu, 08 February 2018 13:25 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 5484312D959 for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 05:25:13 -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 Z7aIhkuRxrtZ for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 05:25:11 -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 C76FF1241FC for <ietf-dkim-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 05:25:11 -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 w18DNoOL021453; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 05:23:51 -0800
Authentication-Results: simon.songbird.com; dkim=fail reason="verification failed; unprotected key" header.d=iecc.com header.i=@iecc.com header.b=MxhRYwWF; 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 w18DNkiZ021448 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 05:23:48 -0800
Received: (qmail 66277 invoked from network); 8 Feb 2018 13:22:49 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple; d=iecc.com; h=date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-type:user-agent; s=102e3.5a7c4f29.k1802; bh=qWA9BKltPPOtyzb5xtJX/ishGchI+sWgOuULZZ5A5zU=; b=MxhRYwWFkrJWdkxsBuuhILYohvI1QERW9X/YJrCffbuuwW0dqHEVcPToSMwtpunSIZUJXHrZ8c/XIfQe6KZxL15+RDJbds5cM3j5HcMUZFCl2ShpcY24x7pEcXz8a0fmL9BpK/AlERXj26pQ8o/sAxPIF/+ySmTG7aFNCnoYDB6ZhO7wPoSxjm49OAx2PlpkEfddeZq1XVoUJYQQNUFEptguSdr0cyqszw/gDfgkORgNwPZVGpgG10TvmbZzYitr
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; 08 Feb 2018 13:22:49 -0000
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 08:22:49 -0500
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1802080808160.51311@ary.qy>
From: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it>
In-Reply-To: <9e7d6a29-cbef-e032-4af9-eb5395071b4d@tana.it>
References: <9e7d6a29-cbef-e032-4af9-eb5395071b4d@tana.it>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (OSX 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: DKIM List <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>

> someone asked me about case sensitiveness of the header field name.  I looked
> for an ABNF in RFC6376, but only found examples and informative notes.

I was going to say that can't possibly be true, but it's true, there's no 
ABNF for the header.  So, for example, I don't know whether the v= field 
has to come first.  Send an erratum, we'll probably accept it as hold for 
update.

By the way, all field names are case insensitive.  RFC 5322 doesn't say 
that explicitly, but the ABNF for the field names makes it pretty clear, 
On the other hand, RFC 5322 also says that field names can be any printing 
ASCII character so this is be a valid header.

$"%\)': plugh

Regards,
John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html