Damon wrote:
On 8/10/06, Stephen Farrell <stephen(_dot_)farrell(_at_)cs(_dot_)tcd(_dot_)ie>
wrote:
Damon,
There are some problems with your suggested statement. (Note:
I'm not saying I'd agree with it if its fixed, but as of now
its just not ready for the WG to consider.)
Damon wrote:
> The Protocol MUST NOT be required to be invoked if a valid first party
> signature (without the 's') is found.
This was a typo on my part. The intent was only one first party
signature is necessary. Sorry 'bout that; corrected.
Ok. What happens if there is a list of authorized signing domains and
one of those signs the message... then what?
We already said that a damaged sig = no sig. We also said that a
valid signer is a valid signer.
I would assume that that counts as a "valid first party signature".
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html