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 17:33 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 676CE12DA12 for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 09:33:37 -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=APSrwxr7; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=bbiw.net header.b=gyunXlVe
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 rxllR4pxBNzT for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 09:33:35 -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 B4881126D73 for <ietf-dkim-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 09:33:35 -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 w18HWpYI005268; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 09:32:52 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=bbiw.net; s=default; t=1518111173; bh=v7WsfB+FhxPe6ifT8Akf5MVmSkEWdx99h+hJkuMFS6w=; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From; b=APSrwxr7i3pT5HxR4IHsEta3kF9tq59ny6+5vPZMZu6yY9T/GblIgKBHubAtwbP3h JTdUeeuhnr9DPtFALB3VnRVTzqE8OIXLSWYcz8Mbwus7uU4uVUtq3z2jUSn8rl/N7y amO2wNZQ+CaiHHMI6c1SuEGvkYgl9j+WENaRqKy4=
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 w18HWowx005239 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 8 Feb 2018 09:32:50 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=bbiw.net; s=default; t=1518111170; bh=fkjO+RO+VErkqdUUGEfU2zWcoCtoH5RPwm5V3UXZGvo=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=gyunXlVei0RsnUhJSZDsJHJYjDL3e6eUtSFbpxHEAu4pXNcQwi6DCIJqExJUmyixu /ZtlszW99PGoAS2ryQ4vZlxtDP2aFjcEx/dGoHpTbbTSFdjcsHEV2MXXCbm2C/7rLB p50BBf+jLu8uVJpBseKCgCXyB8QtabYuQe8Ir7xA=
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>
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <87ca121d-19c3-ed75-3de0-5ee5938377cd@bbiw.net>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 09:31:48 -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.2.21.1802081207120.52386@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 9:09 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
>> They seek to distinguish important differences in processing for what 
>> is claimed to be the /same/ protocol.
>>
>> Except really they don't.
> 
> Except when they do.  I'm thinking, f'rinstance, that there is a bunch 
> of code in things like Spamassassin that looks at headers and switches 
> out to routines to do stuff with them.  There is nothing in Spamassassin 
> that needs to care whether a DKIM signature is v=1 or v=2, that's all 
> inside the DKIM library.  If it passes a v=2 signature to a library that 
> only knows about v=1, the library will say it's invalid, which isn't 
> ideal but isn't wrong.

the code that tests for the v= parameter could, just as easily, check 
for the presence of 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