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

"John R. Levine" <> Sat, 10 February 2018 18:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EAB4126B6E for <>; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 10:01:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.789
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: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1536-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HbX06GJedLgM for <>; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 10:01:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E24B01200FC for <>; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 10:01:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4/Debian-4.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id w1AI0IBS011894; Sat, 10 Feb 2018 10:00:18 -0800
Authentication-Results:; dkim=fail reason="verification failed; unprotected key" header.b=f1X6splG; dkim-adsp=none (unprotected policy); dkim-atps=neutral
Received: from ( []) by (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 <>; 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;; 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 ([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" <>
To: "Dave Crocker" <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <20180210155011.3735B1A7DD64@ary.qy> <> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1802101225020.58081@ary.qy> <>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (OSX 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] versions of RFC822 mail messages, Where is the formal definition of DKIM-Signature?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.16
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DKIM Discussion List <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"
Sender: "ietf-dkim" <>

> 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.

John Levine,, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail.
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to