Linux sagir-us1.hostever.us 5.14.0-570.51.1.el9_6.x86_64 #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Wed Oct 8 09:41:34 EDT 2025 x86_64
LiteSpeed
Server IP : 104.247.108.91 & Your IP : 216.73.216.105
Domains : 74 Domain
User : georgeto
Terminal
Auto Root
Create File
Create Folder
Localroot Suggester
Backdoor Destroyer
Readme
/
usr /
share /
doc /
perl-Mail-DKIM /
doc /
Delete
Unzip
Name
Size
Permission
Date
Action
async_dns.txt
1.16
KB
-rw-r--r--
2020-09-07 05:49
common_verification_problems.txt
440
B
-rw-r--r--
2020-09-07 05:49
dk_headers.txt
634
B
-rw-r--r--
2020-09-07 05:49
dkim_errata.txt
1.67
KB
-rw-r--r--
2020-09-07 05:49
policies.txt
3.47
KB
-rw-r--r--
2020-09-07 05:49
qp1.txt
744
B
-rw-r--r--
2022-02-16 11:02
Save
Rename
Following are some notes about gray areas in the RFC 4871 DKIM specification. Section 3.4.4 "relaxed" Body Canonicalization Empty bodies. Unlike the "simple" body canonicalization, which explicitly says to add a CRLF, the "relaxed" body canonicalization does not say this. The consensus at DKIM-Interop was NOT to add a CRLF for "relaxed" body canonicalization when the body is empty. Section 3.5 "i= Identity of the user or agent" In the section describing "identity", it says dkim-quoted-printable encoding is to be used, but quoted printable is not mentioned in the ABNF. The ABNF includes the "Local-part" token, which allows a quoted string with backslashes to escape certain characters. My interpretation (combining the text and my own reasoning), is that the i= tag value should be the dkim-quoted-printable encoding of: [ Local-part ] "@" domain-name So, e.g. local part domain ---------- ----------- i="meet=20joe"@example.com => "meet joe" example.com i="fine=3Bmess"@example.com => "fine;mess" example.com i="j=20s=22@example.com => "j s" example.com i=j smith @ example . com => jsmith example.com Section 3.6.1 "granularity of the key" Does "an empty g= value never matches any addresses" mean that any signature, no matter the i= value, using this key cannot be matched? The consensus at DKIM-Interop was that YES, that's what it means. It should be noted that this is an incompatible change from RFC4870-DomainKeys, where an empty g= tag in the public key is equivalent to g=*, which would match anything.