On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Barry Leiba
<barryleiba(_at_)computer(_dot_)org>wrote:
"Should't have been signed by us" clearly can't mean that someone
stole the private key or otherwise hacked things, so you're saying,
"Our processes might not be set up right, and we might be signing crap
sent by bad guys. Give us a break until we get things straight."
Right.
But more to the point, it seems that this isn't a specific "we're
testing our system" issue, but a separate issue related to reputation:
"Do not use signatures made with this key as input to your evaluation
of our reputation." It would seem best to propose a new tag, in a
DKIM extension, for that purpose, rather than re-using and overloading
t=.
Since RFC6376 ascribes almost no real meaning to "t=", what's the harm with
revising its definition, perhaps with an "Updates" draft?
Otherwise, I'm fine with that path if others are.
-MSK
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html