Re: [ietf-dkim] RFC4871bis - whether to drop -- x=

DKIM and (Sender-ID and SPF while I'm at it) make recommendations about 
what to do with a signature that fails to verify


Right, but l= and x= make it unclear what it even means to verify.

R's,
John
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
Re: [ietf-dkim] RFC4871bis - whether to drop -- x: Signature expiration, Siegel, Ellen Re: [ietf-dkim] RFC4871bis - whether to drop -- x: Signature expiration, Jon Callas Re: [ietf-dkim] RFC4871bis - whether to drop -- x: Signature expiration, John Levine Re: [ietf-dkim] RFC4871bis - whether to drop -- x: Signature expiration, Douglas Otis Re: [ietf-dkim] RFC4871bis - whether to drop -- x: Signature expiration, Murray Kucherawy Re: [ietf-dkim] RFC4871bis - whether to drop -- x: Signature expiration, Michael Thomas Re: [ietf-dkim] RFC4871bis - whether to drop -- x=, John R. Levine Re: [ietf-dkim] RFC4871bis - whether to drop -- x=, Murray S. Kucherawy Re: [ietf-dkim] RFC4871bis - whether to drop -- x=, John R. Levine <= Re: [ietf-dkim] RFC4871bis - whether to drop -- x=, Paul Russell Re: [ietf-dkim] RFC4871bis - whether to drop -- l= and x=, John Levine Re: [ietf-dkim] RFC4871bis - whether to drop -- l= and x=, Murray S. Kucherawy Re: [ietf-dkim] RFC4871bis - whether to drop -- l= and x=, John Levine Re: [ietf-dkim] RFC4871bis - whether to drop -- l= and x=, Murray S. Kucherawy Re: [ietf-dkim] RFC4871bis - whether to drop -- l= and x=, John R. Levine Re: [ietf-dkim] RFC4871bis - whether to drop -- l= and x=, Murray S. Kucherawy Re: [ietf-dkim] RFC4871bis - whether to drop -- l= and x=, John Levine Re: [ietf-dkim] RFC4871bis - whether to drop -- l= and x=, Murray S. Kucherawy Re: [ietf-dkim] RFC4871bis - whether to drop -- l= and x=, Douglas Otis