On 4/1/25 10:07 AM, John R Levine wrote:
On Tue, 1 Apr 2025, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
Sorry for being unclear. What I meant was that, given DKIM2, a DKIM1
verifier could be updated to handle DKIM2 signatures —if DKIM2
signatures were specified with compatibility in mind.
That makes no sense at all. Why would you waste time making a
semi-broken DKIM verifier rather than just using a DKIM2 verifier?
It's just a software library.
Two different code paths, two different places for screw ups and
maintenance. I'm with Murray that there is a lot of appeal to backward
compatibility. This is hardly a controversial software development practice.
Mike
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
