On 19/09/2025 6:52 am, John Levine wrote:
It appears that Wei Chuang <[email protected]> said:
This proposes modifying DKIM1 <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6376.html>
to make use of algebra to reverse the changes.
I think that's a non-starter. If people are going to change their DKIM
software,
why would they implement mutant DKIM1 rather than DKIM2?
It's hard to see how we can do better than telling people to sign in parallel.
I completely agree with this sentiment. If you are changing DKIM1 to
support DKIM2, then you might as well implement DKIM2 since there is
little difference during the initial signing step anyway.
We should instead be addressing the underlying issues which make DKIM2
incompatible with some use cases. On that basis, I cannot support
draft-clayton-dkim2-spec as a starting point for defining signatures as
it has inherent requirements that break existing use cases and alter
traditional mail flow.
Regards,
R. Latimer
Inveigle.net
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
