Dave Crocker wrote: > There is a difference between noting that the IETF specification is in > flux, versus predicting that the IETF will produce a final > specification that breaks the ability to have a signer who uses the > pre-ietf spec be validated by an implementor of the post-ietf draft. I don't think there's anything that prevents an implementor of the post-ietf draft from verifying an allman-01 signature. You can tell which is being used by looking for the presence/absence of the hash tag/value in the signature header field. > > So far, we have not modified DKIM to cause this breakage. The current > proposal will cause this breakage. I would be considerably more concerned if there was some non-self-evident change to the signature, like if we had decided to hash the body before the signed header fields, and had not also incremented the signature version number.
-Jim _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
