ietf-mailsig
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: DKIM: Authentication-Results

2005-07-18 19:31:46

In 
<20050718190542(_dot_)D13258(_at_)protagonist(_dot_)smi(_dot_)sendmail(_dot_)com>
 "Murray S. Kucherawy" <msk(_at_)sendmail(_dot_)com> writes:

While I'm not necessarily adverse to such a change, I would also
suggest that elsewhere in the header, the method whose result is being
relayed is identified.  A "fail" for DKIM (authentication) would be
thus disambiguated from a "fail" for SPF (authorization), for example.
The cross-product of the method and the result can reveal the
specificity you'd like.

Would you then remove the definitions of "fail", "softfail", etc. from
the auth-header I-D and instead reference back to the definitions
found in the method's spec?

If so, what is the advantage of using a generic header instead of a
method specific header?

If not, what are you going to do about the conflicting semantics
of each term defined by the various specs?



Again, while I like the idea of a generic header, I don't it is
actually very practical and we would be better off with a DKIM
specific header.   I could see advantages to trying to make the DKIM
header as compatible as practical with the Received-SPF header, but
DKIM is different and has different things to that need to be
recorded.  (I don't recall CSV specifying any header, so we don't need
to worry about compatibility with it.)


-wayne


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