Jim Fenton wrote:
Solely? SSP is the sole determiner of Suspicious (which I should have
capitalized), so I'm not sure what you're getting at. How about:
"...the Verifier SHOULD NOT consider the message Suspicious."
Small comment.
I was preferred the approach for outlining WHAT is expected in the
protocol design and when there is a deviation from the expectation, then
the insights about what is or is not viewed as suspicious should be
worked out.
Case in point, t=y (testing mode).
Do you really believe that verifiers are going to tolerate a "MUST NOT"
be view as suspicious for a domain that is perpetually in testing?
What is the expectation behind the testing?
Should it be limited? How long should one continue to process a t=y
site? What is is always a failure?
Another is the MX issue.
What if the SMTP system already has a MX concept BEFORE that data stage
or the mail is accepted? How are the results to this apply to any DKIM
fascimile in the message? Should a pre-emptive MX lookup result be pass
to the headers to help verifiers skip the DKIM processing if a NXDOMIN
is found?
I don't think enough is place in the SSP/DKIM specs about tolerance for
failure where things continuely to go wrong but the specs recommend no
action.
--
Sincerely
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html