[ietf-dkim] another 4871 Errata filed
sm at resistor.net
Mon Oct 20 22:02:46 PDT 2008
At 15:12 20-10-2008, Jim Fenton wrote:
>I don't think this is the right direction to go with this. Even though
>it shows up in many of the DomainKeys examples, there isn't any reason I
>can think of to include an empty g= tag in a DomainKeys key record.
>This proposal adds additional logic to the verifier to handle this case,
>and will need to be included in order to be standards-compliant long
>after DomainKeys is, practically as well as formally, historical.
DomainKeys would take less time to be operationally historical if a
mail provider stops specifying it as a requirement.
>Unless someone can suggest a reason that DomainKeys records need to
>include g=;, I suggest that instead there be a Compatibility Note for
>DomainKeys that recommends against the use of the g= tag in key records
>except when the intent is to match the local-part by using a non-null value.
As RFC 4870 is published as Historic, it is better to leave it as it
is. If the mail provider does the change, the problem will go away quietly.
More information about the ietf-dkim