On 03.05.2011 15:28, Hector Santos wrote:
Authentication-Results: dkim.winserver.com;
dkim=pass header.i=mipassoc.org header.d=mipassoc.org header.s=k00001;
adsp=fail policy=unknown author.d=tana.it signer.d=mipassoc.org
(unauthorized signer);
The "(unauthorized signer)" was added because it was an explicit
DKIM=UKKNOWN DNS record declaration.
If there was no ADSP record, the adsp= info would look like this:
adsp=none author.d=tana.it signer.d=mipassoc.org;
Would that be a reasonable valid A-R reporting for ADSP based on my
interpretation of explicit vs implicit DKIM=UNKNOWN setting?
I don't think so. The only difference between setting "unsigned" and letting
it be derived by default should be the ability to control the expiration of
such value.
As for ATPS, I will happily mention mipassoc.org as authorized signer, and
I'll possibly authorize more domains, but then I'll also forget some. That's
what happened when I enabled ADSP promising to myself to whitelist each and
every MLM, and failing to keep it. IMHO, MLMs should tell authors' servers
about subscriptions, as that would solve a number of problems. Until they
continue not doing that, this particular problem remains among the unsolved
ones.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html