On Nov 9, 2007, at 5:29 AM, Hector Santos wrote:
Charles Lindsey wrote:
Surely, t=y will be used in one of two scenarios:
1. Someone is intending to roll out DKIM, and is trying it out. He
is not sure whether he has implemented it right, so it may fail.
But in that case there will be no SSP record, or if there is one
it will say "we do not sign (yet)".
2. An existing DKIM user is rolling out a new algorithm. As
before, he may get it wrong and the signatures may fail.
That might be GOOD GUY scenarios. How about the EXPLOITED scenarios?
With those two provisos, the existing rule, to ignore any failed
t=y signature (as though there had been no signature) makes
perfectly good sense.
hahahahahaha. :-) Sorry. I just don't see how its not seen that
what you think is GOOD can also be BAD. :-)
That you do not understand that a DKIM message only has two states -
validly signed or not signed - and continue to use that ignorance to
waste time in this forum isn't a laughing matter.
Please behave professionally and constructively or be quiet and let
others work.
Cheers,
Steve
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html