On Thu, 8 Feb 2018, Mark Delany wrote:
Heh. I'm still waiting to hear a good reason as to why "v=" exists at all - apart from exposing brittle parsers which mistakenly expect it to show up as the first tag.
I had a draft that invented v=2, for headers with a tag syntax that is not quite backward compatible with the current spec. I realize that we could change the header to DKIM-Improved-Signature but the change was small and it smelled to me like the same header.
See https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-levine-dkim-conditional/ Regards, John Levine, jo...@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly _______________________________________________ NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html