Barry Leiba wrote:
How does this address my concern? This looks like my current receiver
would fail with the new signature format. That's not backward compatable.
All verifiers already have to change, to support SHA-256.
Sounds like this is another exchange talking past each others' meanings. At the
least, I am increasingly confused by which concern people are responding to.
So:
1) Yes, an IETF DKIM verifier must be different from a pre-IETF verifier.
However we have so far preserved the ability of a pre-IETF signer to work with a
post-IETF DKIM verifier. (So, Barry's statement is true, but I'm not sure it
addressed the concern. Or am I, yet again, missing the point?_
2) When we talk about compatibility, could we start using some sort of notation,
to make very clear what type and direction we have in mind. For example, I
believe the over-the-wire concierns divide beteen::
a) pre-IETF DKIM -> post-IETF DKIM compatibility (pre2post)
b) post-IETF DKIM -> pre-IETF DKIM compatibility (post2pre)
So far, we have preserved pre2post compatibility but do not have post2pre.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html