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 18:56 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 D34BE12D867 for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 10:56:43 -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=LpnJxcT3; dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=bbiw.net header.b=ZYZOIkED
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 GOFNjv9TXeTO for <ietfarch-ietf-dkim-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 10:56:42 -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 B72F4126DFF for <ietf-dkim-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 10:56:30 -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 w18ItniF011319; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 10:55:50 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=bbiw.net; s=default; t=1518116153; bh=Dl9voYipGSJoufLXp1Pm/T/GorTbOV9WCFGq/28ZwFA=; h=To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:Subject:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From; b=LpnJxcT3MHzGZHLMitdVq40vzd/j5sH7NZAmm6VjUE/ksAWJpDBamGTltLjCMYjPM YSLVHW2UWB2IkFeUwt/oe1FqwTKkAnzY7TKZOG6avQyo6RPfOzRYz4XKiLaO77CJcT wXtHb/3V+UZJjB1sCNKEetcIw3sMPEzpAitdFpoM=
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 w18ItlZm011280 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org>; Thu, 8 Feb 2018 10:55:48 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=bbiw.net; s=default; t=1518116148; bh=zXhAFGtVLwYDO0ijhBT/jUdhyg33HF8DS6p/6WPUgmA=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=ZYZOIkEDiDYzpCzGHvveNhuGNFeY1UdyebUnO4Sq88e/IRs4vY+v4O2DdonvTll0o RIaUj1hnX02QA494Jhuk6LGo/Hozlji91jU5EHTb/XctyUPZx7buvd63DDyuibsZJX a7wGrVN2HTCKob9A7H0EGXO4+dlHoMIOOfUfhIzw=
To: ietf-dkim@mipassoc.org
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> <87ca121d-19c3-ed75-3de0-5ee5938377cd@bbiw.net> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1802081244280.52386@ary.qy> <d7ef770e-3592-e876-6c98-5f0fbe56f7b9@bbiw.net> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1802081252290.52386@ary.qy> <8d56e48b-e4a9-93a2-2d3d-231462542376@bbiw.net>
From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@bbiw.net>
Organization: Brandenburg InternetWorking
Message-ID: <fa135f08-7e55-e2b5-046e-531ff01db643@bbiw.net>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 10:54:45 -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: <8d56e48b-e4a9-93a2-2d3d-231462542376@bbiw.net>
Content-Language: en-US
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>

>> True, but not very interesting.  In my spamassassin example, the 
>> outside code knows nothing about DKIM versions, it just sees a 
>> dkim-signature header and sends it to the DKIM library.
> 
> Oh.  So v= doesn't dispatch to different code.


BTW, this topic tends to eventually produce a claim that the fact that 
the different versions share so much code justifies the versioning 
mechanism.

Except that code sharing happens in many circumstances that don't 
require conflating incompatible protocols and then using an internal 
demultiplexing switch.

The larger topic is the choice between high-level switching versus 
low-level, and the long-term costs of transition mechanisms.

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