The ones I wrote certainly didn't require v=1 to come first. ;-)

But you're right: there's probably cause to be concerned.

        Tony

´╗┐On 2/8/18, 10:08 AM, "ietf-dkim on behalf of John R. Levine" 
<ietf-dkim-boun...@mipassoc.org on behalf of jo...@iecc.com> wrote:

    > "v=1" doesn't have to come first.  It just usually does.  I think there 
was
    > a version of RFC4871 that did that, but then when challenged we couldn't
    > come up with a good reason to keep it that way.
    
    I wonder how many DKIM libraries will accept a signature where it doesn't.  
  


_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

Reply via email to