On Saturday August 18 2007 08:00:33 Tony Earnshaw wrote: > Mark Martinec skrev, on 18-08-2007 02:50: > > Why does the following v=1 message from Noel Jones > > fail verification with dkim-milter-2.1.1: > > http://www.ijs.si/~mark/tmp/0.msg.gz > > but succeeds with 1.2.0, and is also fine with Mail::DKIM perl module? > > Because Noel's not using an rfc4871-compliant version of dkim-filter, > he's using 1.2.0. This has been discussed before, also on the Postfix > ML. He says he won't be upgrading before the spate of new releases stops > (which it has :) ).
I don't think that was what that thread was about. It was about dropped support for pre- v1 versions of signatures (like Wietse's and from gmail.com), which isn't the case here. Noel's signature is v=1, signatures from 1.2.0 are supposed to be rfc4871-compliant and should be compatible with dkim-milter-2.1.1. If I create a signature with 1.2.0, it verifies with 2.1.1 just fine, but I'm not using the 'l' tag, or relaxed body canon, like Noel does. I believe Murray's statement can be understood to confirm the compatibility between 1.2.0 and 2.* : | Moreover, if retaining support for pre-RFC versions of DKIM is | important to you, v1.2.0 contains support for all versions and works | just fine (except, of course, for the absence of multiple signature | support). > > Seems to have something to do with a l= tag. > > Nope. I'm not so sure. Mark ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ dkim-milter-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dkim-milter-discuss
