On Sun, Mar 30, 2025 at 4:12 AM Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> wrote:
> I agree. Yet, the following looks silly: > > DKIM2-Signature: v=1; ... > > Better would be to have: > > DKIM-Signature: v=2; ... I seem to recall previous discussions have suggested that the "v" tag shouldn't have been included in the first place; if things are so different that you need to change the version, you may as well change the name of the header field altogether. -MSK
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
