Mircea Purdea wrote:
Two questions:
1. Is this to be considered the 'current' DKIM
specification? That is, should new implementations
follow this?
This is the current working draft. You should expect
more new drafts of base over the next month or two
when we're scheduled to have a working group last
call. At that point the specification will be more
stable. The most recent is always the current one.
Different people will decide differently about when
to start coding. But the more people coding up the
spec the better the result hopefully.
2. Shouldn't this new draft recommend a signature
'Version' value? The new bh/b hashing scheme does not
seem to be compatible with that in 'draft-allman-dkim-base-01'...
That was suggested, but we didn't bottom out on whether
or not its warranted. We should do that.
Stephen.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html