An invalid signature is not unsigned, but we are not discussing that
policy point yet :-)
Bill Oxley
Messaging Engineer
Cox Communications, Inc.
Alpharetta GA
404-847-6397
bill(_dot_)oxley(_at_)cox(_dot_)com
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org
[mailto:ietf-dkim-bounces(_at_)mipassoc(_dot_)org] On Behalf Of Steve Atkins
Sent: Saturday, August 05, 2006 7:51 PM
To: DKIM List
Subject: Re: [ietf-dkim] "I sign everything" is not a useful policy
On Aug 5, 2006, at 4:37 PM, <Bill(_dot_)Oxley(_at_)cox(_dot_)com> wrote:
No point at all, that is what we are supposed to be doing here,
defining
policy then hashing out what that policy clearly means with a
consensus
of the WG. I don't want to be on a technical call 2 years from now
discussing what the policy means like I had to do with WICIS. Lets set
an agreeable policy, discuss what it means (like the statement below)
and the write the document with the clear expectation of what it
means.
1. I sign all
The above means "I sign everything so please discard unsigned mail
apparently from me"
Where "unsigned" means any mail other than DKIM signed
mail which validates correctly when received by the recipient.
(It seems a minor point, but several people here have asserted that
mail for which the signature doesn't validate is not "unsigned").
There, one policy statement done.
Well, a use case to go with it would be nice.
Cheers,
Steve
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html