ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Features that could be reconsidered as part of the bis process

2009-05-21 12:16:49
Dave CROCKER wrote:

Eliot Lear wrote:
On 5/21/09 4:45 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
I think the point is that you can't make assertions of responsibility 
for the information beyond l=.  

Eliot,

But with respect to "assertions" about a message, DKIM only has 
valid-vs-unsigned.

Unfortunately, that was a policy decision and it is conflictive with 
the realistic technical values of a malfunctioning operation. There 
are three technical states software provides:

     signed and valid
     signed and invalid
     unsigned

To eliminate one is a policy decision.

-- 
Sincerely

Hector Santos
http://www.santronics.com


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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>