If assessors can't be bothered to assess the supposedly "self-limiting"
"implementation details", then reputation systems can not take them into
account. By definition.
Right. That's a feature. It's not my job to work around or even identify
crappy signatures. If there's junk in your signed mailstream, I'm not
likely to accept your mail, regardless of how it got there. I have no
interest whatsoever in trying to pick apart signatures and guessing which
ones are particularly gnarly and which ones are sort of froody. They're
either valid or they aren't, per 4871.
RFC 4871 gives no precise definition of what an "assessor" can use to
make whatever decisions it wants to draw from the message *and* the
signature(s).
Right. That's why we're clarifying it.
R's,
John
PS: So if if I'm wrong and assessors are going to use implementation
details, how do you expect them to use the fact that this message has a
signed Cleverness header? Please be specific.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html