On 3/31/25 9:28 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote:
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.
This is all way too abstract for my taste. Unless there are concrete
proposals that require such a property, this seems pretty unproductive,
imo. I can't even guess what this might be about.
Mike, obviously hatless.
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
