ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] How SSP will assist DKIM-BASE

2007-12-18 11:15:42
Neither an "invalid signature" nor "no signature" offers a safe or any
significant difference for non-repudiation.  Your assumption appears
based upon a invalid signature offering greater confidence in a message
source than would no signature.

On the contrary, less confidence on what a true NO signature condition
provides.  IOW, by lumping a broken signature, promoted to no signature
status, then you have what you say is true.  So its not giving it more
confidence, but rather it us removing confidence away from the 100%
assurance and benefits the ALL and STRICT policy provides.

David wanted to see the threats and issues of SSP policies.  IMO, this
is one of them.

Sincerely

Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com


+1 This is something that we have been hashing out for a while but for
some reason we are still trying to sneak through this verbiage. I
believe there is a huge difference between broken and no signature and
that this difference MUST be preserved.

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