It appears that Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> said: >On Sun 23/Mar/2025 20:16:20 +0100 Allen Robinson wrote: >> By having two independent headers, DKIM2 systems can continue to participate >> in >> DKIM1 however they do now, so DKIM1 verifiers would observe no change in the >> signatures they are being presented as a result of DKIM2 adoption. > >I agree. Yet, the following looks silly: > > DKIM2-Signature: v=1; ... > >Better would be to have: > > DKIM-Signature: v=2; ...
No, the bike shed should definitely be green. R's, John PS: We're not even sure if we're going to call this thing DKIM. Personally I like EKIM, which is what comes after DKIM. _______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
