Scott Kitterman wrote:
On 04/19/2006 23:51, Jim Fenton wrote:
This points out another problem: if a verifier defers verification or
acceptance of a given message, it SHOULD maintain enough state so that
the message may be accepted after some number of retries, so that
messages with key retrieval problems are not rejected entirely.
WRT your point, I agree. Perhaps we need to add another bit along the lines
of, "If an email is deferred based on lack of response to the query for the
public key, the verifier SHOULD NOT indefinitely defer the message. While
messages SHOULD be deferred for temporary DNS issues, lack of response to a
query for a public key alone SHOULD NOT result in messages being permanently
rejected."
Hold on a sec... with normal 400's the sender is the one who's supposed
to eventually
give up, not the receiver. For a DNS entry that keeps timing out, why
should we
special case this?
Mike
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html