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

[Michael Thomas <[e-mail]>]

On 02/10/2018 10:22 AM, Dave Crocker wrote:
> On 2/10/2018 10:12 AM, Michael Thomas wrote:
>> DKIM-Signature-v2: vs DKIM-Signature: v=2;
>>
>> Angels, meet the pinhead.
>
> equal semantics does not mean equal implementation.  the processing 
> for each of these takes place in very different parts of the system.  
> the latter requires new code, albeit internal to the DKIM module.  the 
> former merely requires a new table entry.

I don't know when the last time you've written a line of code (my last 
time was about 5 minutes ago), but this is just silly.
It makes not a particle of difference code-wise, but it would require 
reconfiguration of the mailer configurations for a new
header. I'll take that back, code-wise. My assumption is that the actual 
header is passed into the DKIM library. If that's not
true, it would be more work vs. v=2. But I still think this entire 
conversation is silly in its theoreticality.

Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html