It appears that Murray S. Kucherawy <superu...@gmail.com> said: >-=-=-=-=-=- > >On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 1:56 AM Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> wrote: > >> There is room for a lot of compatibility. If we don't change the >> canonicalizations, a DKIM1 verifier will be able to verify a DKIM2 >> signature, limited to DKIM1 semantics. [...] > >I can't tell if this sentence confuses me, or is expressly contrary to what >we probably want here. > >That is, it's possible we specifically do not want a DKIM verifier to be >able to claim success over a DKIM2 signature, accidentally or otherwise.
I have no idea what "verify a DKIM2 signature, limited to DKIM1 semantics" means since the tags and semantics are likely to be incompatible. I would bs surprised if anyone else did either. R's, John _______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
