ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: MX dot was (Re: [ietf-dkim] TXT wildcards SSP issues

2007-06-07 06:12:06
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

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