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