On 3/31/25 11:02 AM, Taavi Eomäe wrote:
On 31/03/2025 19:35, John Levine wrote:
I don't understand what point you are making. The spec says that's
wrong. How would the presence or absence of v=2 make it less wrong?
It's not about if it's wrong or not, it's only an observation that
this behavior already exists in the ecosystem as a response to some
assessors punishing invalid signatures. I was just pointing it out,
there's no point in arguing with me about who is doing what wrong.
Is there actually evidence of this "punishment"? Filtering is
notoriously opaque. Sounds more like paranoid behavior on the part of
some deployments.
Mike
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
