Re: [ietf-dkim] versions of RFC822 mail messages, Where is the formal definition of DKIM-Signature?
2018-02-11 13:41:47
On 2/10/2018 9:59 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
MIME was in significant use quite a bit before ESMTP was operational.
In fact it's a non-trivial feature that MIME only requires adoption by
author and recipient and not by /any/ of the infrastructure. IE, not
by SMTP.
Yes, I know, but I wish you'd read what I've said about 8BITMIME. It's
an overlay that makes an INCOMPATIBLE CHANGE TO THE MESSAGE FORMAT,
which is a version change in any world I know.
The problem is that you are conflating and/or missing some basic points,
relative to my thesis, which is that a distinct 'version' flag is
essentially never useful.
First, 8bitmime changes what is permitted for encoding, not basic
'format' or semantics. (For this discussion, that's a nit, but still...)
Second -- and really quite fundamental -- 8bitmime is a negotiated
feature during an interactive session. The SMTP server gives the SMTP
client permission to use it. DKIM is a unilateral mechanism: there's no
interaction; there is no 'permission' to give. There is only signaling
the fact of usage.
Third, 8bitmime is not a version flag, distinct from the protocol
feature changes being changed, which is the point of this thread. It is
the change itself. The signalling function, that there is a new feature
-- ie, a different 'version', to employ your apparent usage of the term
-- is implicit and integrated, rather than distinct and explicit.
Ditto EAI.
The SMTP extensions to support MIME characteristics are value-added,
beyond the basic MIME capability. In other words, they aren't necessary.
Well, sure, neither is DKIM, you could authenticate your mail some other
way. I don't understand what point you're making here.
That's not my point. DKIM won't work without... DKIM. SMTP /will/ work
without the MIME extensions.
More generally, you have fallen into using the term 'version' for every
specific enhancement. While that has linguistic validity, it does not
have real-world relevance, with respect to a protocol 'version' parameter.
A version parameter is distinct from other syntactic and semantic
aspects of the changes that are being signaled.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: [ietf-dkim] versions, Where is the formal definition of DKIM-Signature?, John R. Levine
- Re: [ietf-dkim] versions, Where is the formal definition of DKIM-Signature?, Mark Delany
- Re: [ietf-dkim] versions of RFC822 mail messages, Where is the formal definition of DKIM-Signature?, John Levine
- Re: [ietf-dkim] versions of RFC822 mail messages, Where is the formal definition of DKIM-Signature?, Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-dkim] versions of RFC822 mail messages, Where is the formal definition of DKIM-Signature?, John R Levine
- Re: [ietf-dkim] versions of RFC822 mail messages, Where is the formal definition of DKIM-Signature?, Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-dkim] versions of RFC822 mail messages, Where is the formal definition of DKIM-Signature?, John R. Levine
- Re: [ietf-dkim] versions of RFC822 mail messages, Where is the formal definition of DKIM-Signature?,
Dave Crocker <=
- Re: [ietf-dkim] versions of RFC822 mail messages, Where is the formal definition of DKIM-Signature?, Dave Crocker
- Message not available
- Re: [ietf-dkim] versions of RFC822 mail messages, Where is the formal definition of DKIM-Signature?, Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-dkim] versions of RFC822 mail messages, Where is the formal definition of DKIM-Signature?, Michael Thomas
- Re: [ietf-dkim] versions of RFC822 mail messages, Where is the formal definition of DKIM-Signature?, Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-dkim] versions of RFC822 mail messages, Where is the formal definition of DKIM-Signature?, Michael Thomas
- Re: [ietf-dkim] versions of RFC822 mail messages, Where is the formal definition of DKIM-Signature?, Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-dkim] versions of RFC822 mail messages, Where is the formal definition of DKIM-Signature?, Michael Thomas
- Re: [ietf-dkim] versions of RFC822 mail messages, Where is the formal definition of DKIM-Signature?, Dave Crocker
- Re: [ietf-dkim] versions of RFC822 mail messages, Where is the formal definition of DKIM-Signature?, Michael Thomas
Re: [ietf-dkim] versions, Where is the formal definition of DKIM-Signature?, Alessandro Vesely
|
|
|