Bill(_dot_)Oxley(_at_)cox(_dot_)com wrote:
I would treat it the same way as a broken ssl certificate, with suspicion.
Rather than determining what is acceptable policy we should briefly outline
what consists of a valid dkim sig with a brief note that policy is in the eye
of the beholder.
thanks,
Hmmm. Come to think of it, I'm inclined to interpret the Postel dictum as
meaning that a broken signature (for whatever reason) is the same as no
signature. Pretend it wasn't there.
That's the most robust (liberal) handling by the validator.
So maybe DKIM has remained within the fold.
d/
--
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<http://bbiw.net>
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://dkim.org/ietf-list-rules.html