ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Re: dkim-base-01 nits and semi-nits

2006-05-03 08:33:46

On May 2, 2006, at 2:33 PM, Dave Crocker wrote:


"Treat as unsigned" seems a little ambiguous when there might be
multiple signatures. It might be interpreted as "treat the message as though it is completely unsigned" as opposed to "consider this signature
invalid" which I think is your intent.

I don't think the wording "consider this signature invalid" requires the
verifier to consider a signature failure as "unsigned".

When a signature fails to validate, the message should be processed as if that signature were not present.

The process should track the number of attempts made verifying signatures for a message. This concern differs from "as if that signature were not present." Without a reasonable limit for the process, DKIM verification itself can become a threat.

-Doug
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html