In article <[email protected]> you write: >On 4/1/2015 8:22 PM, John Levine wrote: >>> In the latter case, it's really an entirely new protocol, which should >>> be identified by the next-lower protocol, rather than by using the >>> version field as an in-bred demultiplexing field. >> >> I suppose, but if the two procols are 99% the same, and the new one is >> upward compatible with the old one, and anything that understands the > >'Upward compatible' was carefully distinguished from 'different protocol'.
It occurs to me why this is still DKIM -- the external interface is the same. You call a DKIM verifier by, roughly, giving it a mail message, and it tells you what the d= was on the valid signatures. That doesn't change. Anything that uses DKIM v1, whether it's DMARC or a Spamassassin plugin, uses v2 the same way. On the signing side, the signer has the new option of adding a conditional signature, but all of the old options still work. R's, John _______________________________________________ dmarc mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc
