ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Issue: Requirements #9 NOT REQUIRED for 1st party valid signatures.

2006-08-10 12:33:07
Damon wrote:

On 8/10/06, Stephen Farrell <stephen(_dot_)farrell(_at_)cs(_dot_)tcd(_dot_)ie> 
wrote:


Damon,

There are some problems with your suggested statement. (Note:
I'm not saying I'd agree with it if its fixed, but as of now
its just not ready for the WG to consider.)

Damon wrote:
> The Protocol MUST NOT be required to be invoked if a valid first party
> signature (without the 's') is found.


This was a typo on my part. The intent was only one first party
signature is necessary. Sorry 'bout that; corrected.

Ok. What happens if there is a list of authorized signing domains and
one of those signs the message... then what?
We already said that a damaged sig = no sig. We also said that a
valid signer is a valid signer.


I would assume that that counts as a "valid first party signature".

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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>