Murray S. Kucherawy skrev, on 17-09-2007 21:21: >> Unfortunately, with signers in data centers throughout the world (this >> message was signed in Amsterdam), it looks like it'll be quite a while >> before Cisco is signing with v=1. It sounds like there was a >> canonicalization change (which I completely forgot about) between v=0.5 >> and v=1. I'll need to look that up. > > There were many drafts using "v=0.5" so figuring out which one your > implementation used makes it hard to determine whether there was a > canonicalization change between that day and today. > > In any case, it's easy to make libdkim tolerate the older "v=" value. > I'll see if I can work that into a 2.2.2 release.
For my own (tiny in the greater spectrum) part, I'd regard every mod that enabled validation of otherwise valid signatures as a huge acquisition/improvement for our own community. I maintain as iconoclast, and have chastised other cynics on other MLs for their ignorance and lack of imagination in their advocacy of the opposite, that DKIM is one of the greatest innovations in preventing message forgery, ever. It doesn't really need an Einstein to figure out why. So yes, pleas, Murray :) Best, --Tonni -- Tony Earnshaw Email: tonni at hetnet dot nl ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ dkim-milter-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dkim-milter-discuss
