>The problem may be that we don't agree about what DKIM versions mean. >Here's what I would like them to mean: ...
>c) Whenever we add new tags that require that the verifier understand them >to get the right answer, we increment the version number. Ned pointed out that we could add an indicator on a tag that means that interpreting the tag is mandatory, so if the verifier doesn't understand the tag, the verification fails. This would decrease the need for future version bumps. So for example: DKIM-Signature: v=2; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; s=s1024; d=sender.example; h=From:To:Date; l=0; !cs=fs; fs=t; bh=... b=<this is a "weak" forwarding signature that covers part of the message> The ! in !cs= means that the verifier MUST handle the cs= tag or fail the message. R's, John _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
