Re: [ietf-dkim] change of venue for ietf-dkim mailing list

On 2/14/18, 4:21 PM, "ietf-dkim on behalf of Rolf E. Sonneveld" wrote: Hi, Dave, thanks for hosting the list for such a long time! /rolf Yes, thank you, Dave! Tony

Re: [ietf-dkim] Where is the formal definition of DKIM-Signature?

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" wrote: > "v=1" doesn't have to

Re: [ietf-dkim] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6376 (5070)

On 7/15/17, 1:29 PM, "Dave Crocker" wrote: (sigh. re-re-sent to try for a valid tony address too...) (resent, to get a working murray address. /d) On 7/15/2017 9:10 AM, RFC Errata System wrote: > Original Text > - > tag-spec

Re: [ietf-dkim] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6376 (4810)

tl;dr: I agree with the change suggested *) I agree with John that "/" and "=" do not need to be encoded because there’s no ambiguity if those were to be present. *) I also agree with John that WS is already covered by the production. *) But ":" DOES need to be encoded for sig-q-tag-method. *)