ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] ISSUE: New SSP Requirement - Body Truncation Limits

2007-01-10 13:11:40
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:

Hector Santos wrote:

I was thinking it might make sense to allow the SSP DOMAIN to define a policy attribute in its SSP record which exposes the expectation for body truncations.

I agree that this should be a capability, but I disagree
> with extending the policy specification.

The rules of DKIM mean that any information of this type must go
> into the key records. If a verifier finds a valid, trusted DKIM
> signature the policy record would not normally be read.

Even better. My only reason for suggesting SSP was because I didn't want to further delay DKIM-BASE. But Yes, definitely, I agree with you. The consideration should be (would be more appropriate) for the key record.

So if the feature is to be supported the only place to put it
> is in the key record as a key signing constraint.

+1.


---
HLS

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

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