ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Issue 1579: ADSP result set, New issue: ADSP status codes

2008-07-06 08:05:38
Stephen Farrell wrote:
 
I'm not clear if you're saying that this remains an open
issue or not or whether you're raising new issues or what.
Can you clarify?

1: One new issue (trivial unless we forget it), fix the *FWS

2: Two old issues, "discardable" + status code.  The latter
   is simple, a reference to RFC 5248 and a recommendation 
   what receivers are supposed to do when they reject ADSP-
   "discardable" mail.

3: One major issue, "discardable" without in depth discussion
   of "false positive" wrt Resent-* scenarios is a show stopper
   for ADSP, it could delete legit 2822upd Resent-messages.

   All "process failure" and legal problems you can think of
   apply.  Slight variation of a bitter joke on the general
   list, ADSP would need a "no problem" statement from the
   rfc822 list written in an appropriate medium such as
   blood if you want to keep "discardable".

Maybe split off the minor points (1) + (2), e.g., (1) could
be tracked in lieu of the former FWS-issue, apparently folks
want FWS in DNS because DKIM also has it, and while it makes 
no sense it could be worse to get a different story in ADSP.
But *FWS is flat out wrong (reported as DKIM erratum).

For (2) if all else "FAILs" (pun) copy a relevant statement
from RFC 4408 with a reference to the new RFC 5248.

I hope that's clearer now, the hard case is (3).  It's about
folks using Resent-* and touching the original header fields
for some reason (i.e. breaking the ADSP protected signature).

 Frank

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