Hector,
You know me as a logical person that can persuaded into understanding
something that I might have disagreed with in the past and we usually
think alike. In this case, I am really trying to figure out how
promotion from BAD to NONE doesn't break ALL and promotes to STRICT.
Because a good or bad a signature is a signature whereas promoting a
BAD signature to NONE fails ALL and therefor promotes ALL to STRICT.
I realize in the real world we would likely promote BAD to NONE
~after~ the validation, but if we are going to do that way, then I
would like to see wording as such in the draft. With this in place, I
would not have an issue with it.
Regards,
Damon Sauer
After re-reading what I wrote, I (like most people likely) went "Huh?"
What I would like to see is something that keeps the integrity of ALL
without promoting to NONE and some implementer pointing to the RFC
later and saying "See, I handled this message correctly because I
promoted the broken signature to NONE" in the case where a broken
signature met an ALL policy.
Maybe it is just too late at night. My wordsmith went home.
Regards,
Damon Sauer
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html