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