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

"John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> Sat, 10 February 2018 18:01 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 5EAB4126B6E for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 10:01:14 -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 HbX06GJedLgM for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 10:01:13 -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 E24B01200FC for <ietf-dkim-archive@ietf.org>; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 10:01:12 -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 w1AI0IBS011894; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 10:00:18 -0800
Authentication-Results: simon.songbird.com; dkim=fail reason="verification failed; unprotected key" header.d=iecc.com header.i=@iecc.com header.b=f1X6splG; 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 w1AI0EJ4011880 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 10:00:16 -0800
Received: (qmail 28579 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2018 17:59:16 -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=6fa1.5a7f32f4.k1802; bh=Ur/z202CFOobsZ3ulOw3y6pJIxBKwlYM/DGCsKmhLPk=; b=f1X6splGo1LJh3tIkbep1po7zqsj77YZ0k6OwineT5JX9/WcCsX1eb3QkTNmMCtr2iY8eJQg+98lfr3aXHy7fn67IjpwEtBNuk4hl0Jb4wNCtvkbMz+bq7snlPexut2aw9p9P6Zti9JEWx0lL+S18zFPHyLzoxewxO4PlDsJpF2iAJl00Pnv4YvmAbfX2x+dBght86otucrtv+svpf+Snm2E/kN/cq37WIZQYNgLkS0sasp4Zx429jnJX9ZTM0UL
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; 10 Feb 2018 17:59:16 -0000
Date: 10 Feb 2018 12:59:15 -0500
Message-ID: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1802101256580.58081@ary.qy>
From: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
To: "Dave Crocker" <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
In-Reply-To: <4fed665f-75ae-b2be-7be4-1fd978528d29@bbiw.net>
References: <20180210155011.3735B1A7DD64@ary.qy> <c116be23-0e65-a1f8-3e08-0d0470b5006b@bbiw.net> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1802101225020.58081@ary.qy> <4fed665f-75ae-b2be-7be4-1fd978528d29@bbiw.net>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (OSX 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
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>

> MIME was in significant use quite a bit before ESMTP was operational. In fact 
> it's a non-trivial feature that MIME only requires adoption by author and 
> recipient and not by /any/ of the infrastructure.  IE, not by SMTP.

Yes, I know, but I wish you'd read what I've said about 8BITMIME.  It's 
an overlay that makes an INCOMPATIBLE CHANGE TO THE MESSAGE FORMAT, which 
is a version change in any world I know.

Ditto EAI.

> The SMTP extensions to support MIME characteristics are value-added, beyond 
> the basic MIME capability.  In other words, they aren't necessary.

Well, sure, neither is DKIM, you could authenticate your mail some other 
way.  I don't understand what point you're making here.

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