The ones I wrote certainly didn't require v=1 to come first. ;-)
But you're right: there's probably cause to be concerned.
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
> 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