mail-vet-discuss
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [mail-vet-discuss] results should be method specific

2008-02-29 16:14:38
On 2/29/08, Mike Markley <mike(_at_)markley(_dot_)org> wrote:

Continuing the thought from above, one could argue that a missing
signature + a sign-all policy = a fail.

It also seems to me, at least, that some way of communicating whether
the broken signature came from a domain or selector in testing mode is
pretty helpful in determining just how strongly any downstream filters
should respond to the failure.


This is why I liked t=y;  The downside of that is you introduce the
same issue dogging SPF......people will sign with t-y; and never
remove it unless clubbed over the head.
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to 
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html 

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