Jim Fenton wrote:
Jon Callas wrote:
>>
In short -- saying "I sign everything" with a non-existent or bogus
key is the same thing as saying, "You'll never see a valid one of
these."
But I agree with this statement, which I think is your main point.
Sure, but unless I am missing a changing of philosophy, this goes
against DKIM-BASE "ignore failures" design.
I was under the impression, the whole point of the SSP layer is to give
DKIM domains and verifiers some authority to handle the DKIM signature
expectation violations.
Is that what we want? change the semantics of DKIM-BASE?
--
Sincerely
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html