On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Murray S. Kucherawy <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> This hasn't been a problem before. Although you've always been >> allowed to use weak signatures, there's been no advantage to doing so, >> so nobody did. Now you do, but with new semantics that you shouldn't >> pay much (any?) attention to that signature unless it's paired with >> the forwarder's. One could make an argument that it's not technically >> a semantic change to DKIM (indeed, Dave just did), but in practical >> terms, it is likely to interact poorly with existing unupgraded >> software, so I'd want a version bump so that the old software ignores >> the special purpose signature. >> > > I see your point, though it seems strange to do a version bump when that's > really the only change to the bits on the wire, and the only real change > then is how the signatures are interpreted; syntax vs. semantics. > Hmm: DKIM-Signature: v=1; d=example.com; ... DKIM-Signature: v=2; l=0; d=example.com; rsf=to,cc,trusted-lists.example.org; ... "rsf" = "require signature from", with "to" and "cc" being special case keywords with the obvious meaning. You have something like that in mind? -MSK
_______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
