On Tue 29/Apr/2025 21:27:30 +0200 John Levine wrote:
It appears that Bron Gondwana <[email protected]> said:
I'm not clear about the logic by which we can assume that IETF MLs will
promptly adopt DKIM2 but will ignore DKOR. Since DKOR is much simpler, it
sounds more likely people will adopt it more quickly than DKIM2.
Unless I mis-understood it, DKOR wouldn't be applied by the IETF MLs because
they aren't the initiator of the message. DKOR is
very lightly specified, so I may have misread that.
Certainly the IETF list is not currently adding a DKIM signature. This message
that I am replying to has a single
DKIM-Signature header field, with `d=tata.it`.
That's a configuration bug that happened when we moved to the new server.
We're working on it.
No, that's because Bron received his own copy of the message (I hit Reply-All).
I got a copy of that message from the IETF, which authenticated like so:
Authentication-Results: wmail.tana.it;
spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ietf.org;
dkim=pass reason="transformed" header.d=tana.it;
dkim=pass (whitelisted) header.d=ietf.org
header.b=mmgMQE1v (ietf1);
dkim=pass (whitelisted) header.d=ietf.org
header.b=mmgMQE1v (ietf1)
(Both IETF signatures are identical, albeit apparently created by different
hosts.)
Best
Ale
--
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
