[ietf-dkim] Re: WG Review: Domain Keys Identified Mail (dkim)
moore at cs.utk.edu
Thu Dec 22 10:45:11 PST 2005
[recipient list trimmed]
> > We have already agreed to -- and incorporated -- a
> > substantial backward incompatible change (the canonicalization)
> > due to feedback (and threats) we got. What I'm hoping for
> We have agreed to the addition of an enhancement that provides a good
> alternative to the existing set of two algorithms.
> That is quite different from tossing out over-the-wire backward
> I have not seen the group agree that a sender of an (ESTG) DKIMv1
> signature will fail with an (IETF) DKIMv2 validator.
I don't know why it would be in anyone's interests to prohibit a
validator of new signatures from also validating old signatures. That
doesn't mean, of course, that recipients or agents acting on their
behalf should assign the same meaning, or invest the same degree of
trust, in old signatures and new signatures.
More information about the ietf-dkim