On Tue, Jul 22, 2025, at 17:03, Dave Crocker wrote: > On 7/22/2025 6:25 AM, John Levine wrote: > > I fear this is a swamp we do not want to enter, trying to say which > > signatures are "better" than others. If recipient systems want to > > apply their own heuristics they can do that, but I do not believe that > > we can guess now what sort of heuristics will be useful or which will > > be useless or even worse, counterproductive. > > > The spec probably should include some non-normative text, advising the > signer to include the 'strongest', 'best', whatever signature that it > knows or believes the validators will support. And text advising > validators to validate the s/b/w signature it can.
This makes sense. I presume that every so often there would be a new RFC "the furble signature algorithm for DKIM2" which might say: "this is the new strongest algorithm; recommended for all new keys" or "this is super fast on the gp2145 architecture, and secure enough for most purposes, however you MAY choose to use the existing supersloth7 algorithm for messages which need extra security". Bron. -- Bron Gondwana, CEO, Fastmail Pty Ltd / Fastmail US LLC [email protected]
_______________________________________________ Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
