[Top] [All Lists]

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

2018-02-10 03:39:54
On Fri 09/Feb/2018 23:31:41 +0100 John R. Levine wrote:

The DKIM v=2 hack I proposed is a lot like SMTP extensions in that if
your signature doesn't need the new semantics, don't ask for them, so
you should sign with v=1, so the old and new will coexist forever.
Since they can easily be handled by the same signing and verifying
libraries, that's not a problem.

Assuming that that hack would have been way more befitting than any other idea
discussed on dmarc-ietf ever since, one may wonder how much of its fading away
was due to its version bumping instead of, say, introducing a new header field.


NOTE WELL: This list operates according to

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>