On 3/31/25 10:28 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
On Mon, Mar 31, 2025 at 10:20 AM Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote:
>> 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 think I don't want an existing DKIM verifier to be able to provide
> some sort of result for a DKIM2 signature. I foresee much confusion
> resulting from that.
This presupposes some solution which is not available that I've seen.
Absent a document to evaluate, I'm not sure why we're positing
backward
incompatibility as if it were a given.
I think it's helpful to converge on a guideline or a starting point.
I think that's what we're trying to do here.
(We're also, I think, trying to answer the question you asked at the
top of this thread.)
I went back and read that again and:
> The abstract idea I'm relying on here is that a STD 76 signature
needs to fail in certain new cases.
Which is... abstract. Until there is a concrete proposal that has a
non-abstract rationale, it's impossible to evaluate on its own terms. I
haven't seen anything thus far that requires a breaking change.
Mike
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
