Stephen Farrell wrote:
The suggestion (I think) is to define three possible
ADSP results (open/closed/locked).
Yeah, my part in that was mostly focussed on "there is
no worse name than 'discradable', therefore 'locked'
might be better".
ssp-04 doesn't do that - it lists 4 possible results,
but doesn't give those specific names.
[3.3]
| All messages from this domain are signed and discardable.
Even if you stick to "discardable" that is certainly not
what you want. Maybe [...] "are either signed or" [...}
[4.2.1]
| adsp-dkim-tag = %x64.6b.69.6d *FWS "=" *FWS
| ("unknown" / "all" / "discardable")
<digression>
Never, under no circumstances, allow more than one FWS,
a single optional [FWS] is bad enough in DNS. More than
one introduces the miracles of "apparently empty lines"
consisting entirely of "semantically significant white
space".
Submitted as 4871 erratum - normally I'd say "editorial",
but the other reported DKIM ABNF nits say "technical".
</digression>
ssp-04 still says "discardable", and maybe it passes IETF
review for status "experimental". But spp-04 clearly says
"standards track", and does not mention Resent-* anywhere.
For receivers rejecting suspicious mails the draft should
note the relevant SMTP reply and extended error code with
a reference to RFC 5248.
Frank
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html