On Mon 18/Nov/2024 18:53:11 +0100 Jim Fenton wrote:
On 18 Nov 2024, at 9:23, Dave Crocker wrote:
On 11/17/2024 2:19 PM, Bron Gondwana wrote:
Regarding the question of "is this DKIMbis or something bigger"? It's
something bigger than just tweaks to DKIM.
The choice of the name "DKIM2" is partially branding, and partially because it
re-uses the existing DNS entries for DKIM keys and large parts of the signing
infrastructure.
DKIM is not called DomainKeys2.
"Using bits of" is not the same as "adding bits to". The new protocol is not
compatible with the old protocol, in spite of reusing some bits.
I have been musing to myself that there might be ways to add fields to
DKIM-Signature header fields in a way that would still be verifiable for
existing DKIM verifiers but would provide additional functionality for
DKIM2/DKIMbis/whatever. It isn’t clear to me that it can’t be backwards
compatible. Whether it is desirable to just add another header field is a
separate question.
Some features a totally non-compatible (e.g. bounces), and difficult to
implement in a classical mail filter. (Dave's forecast of decades is optimistic.)
How about DKOM?
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
