On 4/1/25 10:41 AM, John R Levine wrote:
On Tue, 1 Apr 2025, Alessandro Vesely wrote:
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.
The resulting DKIM verifier is not semi-broken, it's DKIM2-tolerant.
And it's not just a library change, it's also the MTA interface.
Either way it seems like a severe waste of time to do that rather than
make DKIM2 work. I see no chance that DKIM2 or EKIM or whatever we
call it will use the same signature header so it's purely hypothetical
anyway.
What protocol draft are you basing that assumption off of? I haven't
seen one. Until there is one, it's just guesswork.
Mike
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
