Dave Crocker wrote:
But in the worst case, the list has simply invalidated the signature,
and we say that this SHOULD be considered equivalent to no signature
at all. Absent SSP, this is no bad thing.
I am inclined to agree. However the [] behavior is rather common. So
we probably should consider whether it is reasonable to have DKIM
contain features that are intended to allow a signature survive mailing
list transit, when we know that the final result will usually fail.
That's why I use the z= option, regardless of what the
overly proscriptive -base spec says. I don't think this should
in any way be part of the spec though as it is clearly a
heuristic and depends greatly upon how much risk a receiver
wants to tolerate.
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html