Re: [Ietf-dkim] DKIM issues (tag "v=DKIM1", tag "p=")

On 6/12/2023 12:33 PM, Barry Leiba wrote: DomainKeys was already made Historic when RFC 4870 was published in 2007. Look at the RFC status. Indeed.  Upper right corner of the page: rfc4870 It is relatively common to have a working specification come

Re: [Ietf-dkim] DKIM issues (tag "v=DKIM1", tag "p=")

DomainKeys was already made Historic when RFC 4870 was published in 2007. Look at the RFC status. Barry On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 1:18 PM Jan Dušátko wrote: > > Murray, Dave > > I would like to ask another question about the following. > - DomainKey (RFC 4870) only allows signatures to be used

Re: [Ietf-dkim] DKIM issues (tag "v=DKIM1", tag "p=")

Murray, Dave I would like to ask another question about the following. - DomainKey (RFC 4870) only allows signatures to be used with RSA-SHA1 algorithm, which is now considered obsolete. I have not found support for other algorithms. - At the moment I am trying to monitor the frequency of

Re: [Ietf-dkim] DKIM issues (tag "v=DKIM1", tag "p=")

Hi thank you for answers. Seems that I overlooked some details inside RFCs and my idea are not needed as I think Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: > if it's a TXT record and it is in a DKIM DNS naming path, it better be a DKIM record. You are right. I trying to do strict syntax check, but I also

Re: [Ietf-dkim] DKIM issues (tag "v=DKIM1", tag "p=")

On 5/16/2023 8:52 AM, Murray S. Kucherawy wrote: Also, a change to make this REQUIRED would take forever for the world to adapt. As noted, if it's a TXT record and it is in a DKIM DNS naming path, it better be a DKIM record. Also, versions numbers are pretty much useless.  So leaving it out

Re: [Ietf-dkim] DKIM issues (tag "v=DKIM1", tag "p=")

On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 7:00 AM Jan Dušátko wrote: > 1) At this moment, the use of the tag "v=DKIM1;" is only RECOMMENDED and > if this tag is used, it must be the first. Unlike, for example, SPF and > DMARC, this is not a REQUIRED (MANDATORY) record. In case of an attempt > to identify DKIM

Re: [Ietf-dkim] DKIM issues (tag "v=DKIM1", tag "p=")

> On 16 May 2023, at 15:16, Steve Atkins wrote: > > > >> On 16 May 2023, at 15:00, Jan Dušátko >> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> I would like to ask how you feel about the possibility of changing the >> conditions for DKIM keys stored in DNS. Best in some future RFC release >> about DKIM itself. I

Re: [Ietf-dkim] DKIM issues (tag "v=DKIM1", tag "p=")

> On 16 May 2023, at 15:00, Jan Dušátko > wrote: > > Hi, > I would like to ask how you feel about the possibility of changing the > conditions for DKIM keys stored in DNS. Best in some future RFC release about > DKIM itself. I have a practical experience during review and cleaning of >

[Ietf-dkim] DKIM issues (tag "v=DKIM1", tag "p=")

Hi, I would like to ask how you feel about the possibility of changing the conditions for DKIM keys stored in DNS. Best in some future RFC release about DKIM itself. I have a practical experience during review and cleaning of thousands of domain, which is exhausting. And discussion about that