ietf-dkim
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ietf-dkim] Mailing lists and s/mime & dkim signatures - mua considerations

2010-08-25 07:34:03
Sonneveld, Rolf wrote:

Let's keep it clear: a broken signature is to be ignored 
(base DKIM spec). But removing signatures without a good reason 
is wrong.

A good reason is to lower the confusion of an unknown assessment 
world, especially when the LAST SIGNER is taking responsibility and is 
the presumably the only "vounch-able" entity but the unknown 
non-standard reputation filtering engines (RFE) advocates.

What is your reason for keeping a broken signature?  Do you have an 
RFE that can utilize this information?

Look, systems that support policy are in a better position to filter 
these faults in the system.  But in lieu of a policy standard, I can 
probably see where the MLM or any resigner blindly stamps its DNA 
ignoring any previous single or collection of signatures.

But we have a WG Policy concept in place. One way for the MLM to lower 
the confusion is to honor it first.  After that, it can really do what 
it whats because it is all now in an indeterminate state that can only 
be possibly handled by special signing arrangements.

-- 
Hector Santos, CTO
http://www.santronics.com
http://santronics.blogspot.com


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